RFR: 8150680 JarFile.Release enum needs reconsideration with respect to it's values

[Steve Drach]

I’ve updated the webrev to address the issue of the constructor accepting values like Version.parse(“7.1”)

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.01/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.01/>

> On Jun 15, 2016, at 8:56 AM, Steve Drach <steve.drach at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
>>> Please review the following changeset:
>>> 
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.00/index.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.00/index.html>
>>> issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8150680 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8150680>
>>> 
>>> The issue calls for reconsidering the JarFile.Release enum.  A comment in the bug report suggests replacing JarFile.Release with Runtime.Version, and that’s what I did.  Specifically I removed the enum, changed the constructor to accept a Runtime.Version object instead of a JarFile.Release object, updated all places in the JDK that invoked the constructor and updated all tests.
>>> 
>> Moving to Runtime.Version seems right but doesn't the javadoc for the constructor need to be updated to make it clear how it behavior when invoking with something like Version.parse("7.1") ? If I read the code correctly then this will be accepted and getVersion() will return 7.1.
> 
> Yes, it needs to be updated and it needs to be fixed.  Thanks for finding that.
> 
>> 
>> Fields or methods is another discussion point for the base and runtime versions.
> 
> My thinking is, in this case fields and methods are equivalent, the method not giving any more flexibility than a field.  For example the method JarFile.baseVersion will just return the value contained in the private final static field BASE_VERSION.  Or the public final static field BASE_VERSION can be directly accessed.  I see no advantage of a method here.  But I’m willing to be enlightened.
> 
>> 
>> -Alan.
>