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

[Steve Drach]

Hi Paul,

> Hi. I would like to point out that it appears JarFile.Release enum is specifically tailored to address multi-version jar specification.

I think you are looking at the current code, not the webrev.  What the webrev does is remove the JarFile.Release enum.

> However, I find nothing in that enum specific except for the documentation and BASE_VERSION. Wouldn't it better to create a top-level Release enum that can be used to identify anything in the JDK with release semantics -- apart from Jar files? 
> 
> Cheers,
> Paul
> 
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Steve Drach <steve.drach at oracle.com <mailto:steve.drach at oracle.com>> wrote:
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I believe this webrev addresses your concerns:
> 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.03/index.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.03/index.html> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.03/index.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.03/index.html>>
> 
> 
> > On Jun 16, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com <mailto:paul.sandoz at oracle.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On 16 Jun 2016, at 14:44, Steve Drach <steve.drach at oracle.com <mailto:steve.drach at oracle.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> This webrev uses methods instead of fields to return the base and runtime values used internally by JarFile.  I’ve also optimized it a bit.
> >>
> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.02/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.02/> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.02/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sdrach/8150680/webrev.02/>>
> >>
> >
> > JarFIle
> > —
> >
> > 132     private final static int base_version;
> >
> > You are using lower case, here, this caught me out as i thought it was an non-static field. Call it something like BASE_VERSION_MAJOR.
> >
> >
> > 155         BASE_VERSION = Runtime.Version.parse(String.valueOf(base_version));
> >
> > 164         RUNTIME_VERSION = Runtime.Version.parse(String.valueOf(runtimeVersion));
> >
> > Use Integer.toString rather than String.valueOf (also update specification).
> >
> >
> > 337     public final Runtime.Version getVersion() {
> > 338         if (VERSION == null) {
> > 339             if (isMultiRelease()) {
> > 340                 VERSION = Runtime.Version.parse(String.valueOf(version));
> > 341             } else {
> > 342                 VERSION = BASE_VERSION;
> > 343             }
> > 344         }
> > 345         return VERSION;
> > 346     }
> > 347     private Runtime.Version VERSION;
> >
> > You are using the style for a static field.
> >
> > In the JarFile constructor why don’t you just store the version passed in unless MULTI_RELEASE_FORCED?
> >
> > Have final fields:
> >
> >  final Runtime.Version version;
> >  final int version_major;
> >
> > then do:
> >
> >  if (MULTI_RELEASE_FORCED || version.major() == RUNTIME_VERSION.major()) {
> >      // This also deals with the common case where the value from JarFile.runtimeVersion() is passed
> >      this.version = RUNTIME_VERSION;
> >  } else if (version.major() <= BASE_VERSION_MAJOR) {
> >      // This also deals with the common case where the value from JarFile.baseVersion() is passed
> >      this.version = BASE_VERSION;
> >  } else {
> >     // Canonicalize
> >     this.version = Runtime.Version.parse(Integer.toString(version.major()));
> >  }
> >  this.version_major = version.major();
> >
> > Paul.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>> On Jun 15, 2016, at 4:31 PM, Joseph D. Darcy <joe.darcy at oracle.com <mailto:joe.darcy at oracle.com>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Steve,
> >>>
> >>> In JarFile, please use methods not fields to return the new information. The information in question is not constant across versions. Using methods instead of fields avoid over-committing on a particular implementation, etc.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> -Joe
> >>>
> >>> On 6/15/2016 3:49 PM, Steve Drach wrote:
> >>>> 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/> <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 <mailto: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> <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> <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.
> >>>
> >>
> >
> 
>