Please Review fix for reduced value parser 8024076

[Xueming Shen]

On 10/02/2013 10:20 AM, roger riggs wrote:
> Hi Sherman,
>
> The BASE_DATE is the default ChronoLocalDate and is used outside of RPP.
> RPP itself uses any ChronoLocalDate, not the specific one.
> Scoping BASE_DATE to RPP would not delay the initialization
> since it would need to be initialized at line 1715.

The BASE_DATE will not be initialized until the code runs into line#1715, if
we hide the BASE_DATE into RPP, which might benefit applications that
never uses the "reducedValue" functionality. The BASE_DATE  is something
only used for appendValueReduced() functionality and RPP is its implementation,
so I don't see any probably logically to move it into RPP, maybe rename it
to ISO_BASE_DATE...

-Sherman


>
> Roger
>
>
>
> On 10/2/2013 12:54 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
>> Should move the static field BASE_DATE into ReducePrinterParser?
>> Logically (and for performance, if it matters at all) RPP appears to
>> be a better place for this constant.
>>
>> The rest looks fine.
>>
>> -Sherman
>>
>> On 10/02/2013 08:19 AM, roger riggs wrote:
>>> Please review this fix for parsing two digit years in an Chronology.
>>>
>>> The webrev includes Stephen's proposed alternate method that provides
>>> a ChronoLocalDate as the base date.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-two-digit-8024076/
>>>
>>> Thanks, Roger
>>>
>>> p.s. the design issue raised in the comments has been filed as [2] : 8025828
>>>
>>> [1]https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8024076
>>> [2]https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8025828
>>>
>>>
>>
>