What methods should go into a java.util.Objects class in JDK 7?

[Joseph D. Darcy]

Joe Darcy wrote:
> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2009 at 17:34, Joe Darcy<Joe.Darcy at sun.com> wrote:
>>  
>>> Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Google would like to contribute implementations of the methods below.
>>>> Here's a webrev:
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/compare/
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> Wherever these compare methods go, into the N wrapper classes or into
>>> java.util.Compare,
>>>     
>>
>> Given the precedent of Double.compare(double,double) and
>> Float.compare(float,float), I think the compare methods need
>> to go into the primitive wrapper classes.
>>
>>  I think the instance method compareTo should be rewritten
>>  
>>> in terms of the new static compare.  In particular,
>>>
>>> 422     public int compareTo(Short anotherShort) {
>>> 423         return this.value - anotherShort.value;
>>> 424     }
>>>
>>> should get replaced with
>>>
>>> 422     public int compareTo(Short anotherShort) {
>>> 423         return compare(this.value, anotherShort.value);
>>> 424     }
>>>     
>>
>> As you wish.
>>
>> Webrev updated.
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk7/compare/
>>   
>
> I approve these changes in an engineering sense; they are a fix for bug
>
> 6582946 Add suite of compare(T, T) methods for ints, longs etc
>
>>> This consolidates the comparison logic in a single method per type and
>>> reuses the existing implementation tests.
>>>     
>>
>>
>>  
>>> (Later in JDK 7, a set of "unsignedCompare" methods are possible 
>>> additions
>>> to the platform too.)
>>>
>>>    
>>>> We have tests (not yet included) but they would need to be 
>>>> jtreg-ified.
>>>> Is there any junit support yet for jtreg?
>>>>
>>>>       
>>> No.
>>>
>>> Once the home of the new methods is determined, I'll file a ccc 
>>> request so
>>> these changes can go back after any additional testing is settled.
>>>     
>>
>> There's not a whole lot of testing work here, but we will provide it if
>> it CCC is approved.
>>
>>   
> I've created a ccc for this and will let you know when it is approved.
>
> -Joe
>

Martin,

The paperwork has been handled; I approve your set of compare methods 
going back.

Thanks,

-Joe