RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion

[Mandy Chung]

Sure thing.  Glad to see this going in.

Mandy

> On Feb 2, 2016, at 7:17 PM, Iris Clark <iris.clark at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Mandy.
> 
> Thanks so much for pushing the changeset for the initial implementation
> of jdk.Version!
> 
> Regards,
> iris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iris Clark 
> Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 1:45 PM
> To: Iris Clark; Joe Darcy; Mandy Chung; Magnus Ihse Bursie; Roger Riggs; Alan Bateman
> Cc: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net; verona-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion
> 
> Hi, Joe, Roger, Alan, Magnus, and Mandy.
> 
> At the end of December (shortly before the Christmas/Winter break and my vacation), I provided responses to your messages and an updated webrev:
> 
>  http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~iris/verona/8072379/webrev.2/
> 
> I didn't hear from anybody, so I'd like to optimistically assume that you were satisfied.  Is that correct? 
> 
> For you convenience, here's a reference to the December and November
> threads:
> 
>    http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-December/037062.html
>    http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-November/036904.html
> 
> I'd like to wrap up this work for the initial implementation of jdk.Version soon.  
> 
> Regards,
> iris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Iris Clark
> Sent: Friday, December 18, 2015 1:55 PM
> To: Joe Darcy; Mandy Chung
> Cc: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net; verona-dev at openjdk.java.net
> Subject: RE: RFR: 8072379: Implement jdk.Version and jdk.OracleVersion
> 
> Hi, Joe.
> 
> Thanks for the review comments.
> 
>>>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~irisa/verona/8072379/webrev.1/
> 
>> Is the intention that downstream JDK distributions, such as IcedTea, 
>> whether based on OpenJDK or otherwise, would provide their own 
>> specialization of the jdk.Version class?
> 
> No.  Downstream users may provide their own specialization, but there is no requirement that they must do so. 
> 
> jdk.OracleVersion has been removed.  The functionality it provided, access to the fourth element of the version number, is trivially accessed by existing methods in jdk.Version.
> 
> I've filed the following bug to address the more general use case:
> 
>    8145793:  Provide vendor-specific interpretation of a JDK version string
>    https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145793
> 
>> The equals / hashCode behavior of Version and OracleVersion is bit 
>> surprising and I think somewhat underspecified given the possibility 
>> of defining subclasses.
> 
> Given the above regarding downstream use, I've make jdk.Version final and the constructor is now private.  Oracle or any other JDK distribution wishing to impose additional semantics to the version string interpretation will need to do so via encapsulation rather than inheritance.
> 
>> How is this API supposed to behave if the component version strings 
>> have a numerical value greater than Integer.MAX_VALUE?
> 
> From the specification of the only instance method, Version.parse():
> 
>     * @throws  NumberFormatException 
>     *          If an element of the version number or the build number cannot
>     *          be represented as an {@link Integer}
> 
>> Was using Longs to record numerical versions rather than Integers 
>> considered?
> 
> Yes.  In an informal poll conducted during implementation, it was thought that 2^32 bits would be more than sufficient to represent the components of typical version numbers.
> 
> An updated webrev is forthcoming.
> 
> Thanks,
> iris
> 
> PS:  I believe that we are both out the week of 21 December, so I don't expect to hear back from you until the New Year.