RFR:8146218: Producing streams in java.time?

[Roger Riggs]

Hi Tagir,

After the discussion, I agree.

The only addition I would like to see  in the tests to add or modify
a test so that the it explicitly requires the Stream<LocalDate> at 
compile time.
None of the new tests check that the result type signatures are
as expected.

Thanks, Roger

On 1/27/16 11:28 PM, Tagir F. Valeev wrote:
> Hello!
>
> It should be noted that there's already a precedent in JDK where
> method returning stream is subclassed and returns the stream of more
> concrete objects. I'm speaking about ZipFile and JarFile:
>
> public class ZipFile {
>     public Stream<? extends ZipEntry> stream() {...}
> }
>
> public class JarFile extends ZipFile {
>     @Override
>     public Stream<JarEntry> stream() {}
> }
>
> Such generic stream declaration adds some difficulties for ZipFile
> users. For example, consider this question:
> http://stackoverflow.com/q/31455188/4856258
> So in general I would like to avoid Stream<? extends ChronoLocalDate>.
>
> With best regards,
> Tagir Valeev.
>
> RR> Hi Stephen, Tagir,
>
> RR> On 1/27/2016 10:30 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>> On 27 January 2016 at 15:13, Roger Riggs <Roger.Riggs at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/26/2016 8:57 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>>>> Thus, adding the ChronoLocalDate methods later will make two additional
>>>>> methods available on LocalDate (as they will not override).
>>>> Since all the calendars are built on the same 24hour days and epochDays, the computations
>>>> result would be the same regardless of the Chronology.
>>>>
>>>> The existing LocalDate.until, compareTo, isBefore, isAfter, isEqual methods already use the
>>>> ChronoLocalDate argument type to avoid having double the signatures.
>>>>
>>>> Modifying the type of the argument to be ChronoLocalDate would not modify the semantics
>>>> and would make it possible to avoid extra methods in the future.
>>>>
>>>> I recommend changing the argument to ChronoLocalDate be consistent with the existing
>>>> until method to keep the option open for a possible addition to ChronoLocalDate
>>> The LocalDate::datesUntil(ChronoLocalDate) method internals would be
>>> unaffected as it operates off toEpochDay(). Worth noting that an
>>> abstraction on the ChronoLocalDate interface would have to return
>>> Stream<? extends ChronoLocalDate>.
> RR> Right,  Interestingly, none of the tests explicitly depend on the return
> RR> type of Stream<LocalDate>
> RR> and only use methods that are in ChronoLocalDate.   (Based on a quick
> RR> prototype).
>
> RR> But its enough to suggest that there should be some additional test or
> RR> use of the compile time types.
>
> RR> A Stream<ChronoLocalDate> would be inconvenient and counter intuitive.
> RR> That's enough of a reason for me to keep the current signatures.
>
> RR> Thanks for the comments, Roger
>
>
>>> A LocalDate::datesUntil(ChronoLocalDate, Period) method would however
>>> contain a mixture of Chrono and ISO specific types. Given how the
>>> internals of the method depend on access to Period specific concepts
>>> abstracting to ChronoPeriod would not be pleasant (if possible) As
>>> such, this signature seems unwise.
>>>
>>> But that gives two types of signature - an abstracted one and a specific one:
>>> LocalDate::datesUntil(ChronoLocalDate)
>>> LocalDate::datesUntil(LocalDate, Period)
>>>
>>> Again, it isn't clear that is better.
>>> Stephen