RFR: JDK-8134373: explore potential uses of convenience factories within the JDK

[Stuart Marks]

OK, I'll sponsor this. I need to run this through our internal testing system 
before pushing it. I'll follow up here with results.

s'marks


On 10/10/16 1:34 AM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Would you kindly review the latest webrev now?
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~reinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02 
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ereinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02>
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Kind regards,
> Jonathan
>
> On 7 October 2016 at 21:59, Patrick Reinhart <patrick at reini.net 
> <mailto:patrick at reini.net>> wrote:
>
>     Here is the latest webrev:
>
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~reinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02
>     <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ereinhapa/reviews/8134373/webrev.02>
>
>     -Patrick
>
>
>
>     > Am 07.10.2016 um 12:00 schrieb Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
>     <jbluettduncan at gmail.com <mailto:jbluettduncan at gmail.com>>:
>     >
>     > Hi all,
>     >
>     > Sorry for the delayed response, I've been busy lately with university
>     and other things.
>     >
>     > Thank you all for your comments. I'll leave the DateTimeFormatter
>     comment in, as you requested Stephen and Roger, and I'll work again with
>     Patrick as soon as I'm ready.
>     >
>     > Kind regards,
>     > Jonathan
>     >
>     > On 6 October 2016 at 09:38, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org
>     <mailto:scolebourne at joda.org>> wrote:
>     > On 6 October 2016 at 00:00, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com
>     <mailto:stuart.marks at oracle.com>> wrote:
>     > >> I think you should perform no change to DateTimeFormatter (other than
>     > >> a comment) as part of this changeset. The behaviour of that
>     > >> DateTimeFormatter method is subtle, and I now suspect that what we
>     > >> have there might be the best option.
>     > >
>     > > I had recommended removing the comment from DateTimeFormatter, but if
>     > > Stephen wants the comment in, that's fine with me. In fact I'll defer to
>     > > what Stephen (and Roger Riggs) want with this code, since they're the
>     > > maintainers.
>     >
>     > I think it makes sense to leave the new comment in. All further change
>     > should be under 8167222.
>     >
>     > Stephen
>     >
>
>