RFR 8223593 : Refactor code for reallocating storage

[Ivan Gerasimov]

Hi Roger!

I think that not only the name, but also the arguments compose the 
signature.
So, calcLength(oldLength, minGrowth, prefGrowth) is meant to be read as 
"given old length and the amount(s) to grow, calculate the new length".
And since this method is placed into ArraysSupport, it should be clear 
that it is an array's length.

I understand that in certain contexts size may sound more natural than 
length.
Here, however, using 'length' should be a hint that we're dealing with 
array.length.

With kind regards,
Ivan

On 5/17/19 10:35 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
> Hi Ivan,
>
> The new calcLength method name is too generic, it does not say enough 
> about its function.
> There is no indication that the purpose is to resize an array.
> As for size vs length, sometime size is more evocative of the function 
> being performed
> than 'length' and is more natural.  In most cases, size and length are 
> understood to be synonyms
> and capacity is a very apt term for how many elements can be held.
>
> Can I recommend resizedLength.
>
> Regards, Roger
>
>
>
> On 05/15/2019 10:47 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>> Thank you Pavel and Roger for reviewing!
>>
>> I apologize for reiterating this.
>> After off-line discussion with Stuart Marks, the fix was modified 
>> once again.
> !!
>> The modifications were mostly stylistic:  The used terminology now 
>> reflects that we work with arrays (thus 'length', not 'size' or 
>> 'capacity').
>> Functionally, the fix remains exactly the same.
>>
>> BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223593
>> WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8223593/02/webrev/
>>
>> With kind regards,
>> Ivan
>>
>> On 5/14/19 7:50 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
>>> Hi Ivan,
>>>
>>> The updated patch looks fine.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, the change to Files.readAllBytes is not indicated 
>>> by the bug report
>>> so please update or comment on the bug report to mention that change.
>>>
>>> Thanks, Roger
>>>
>>>
>>> On 05/13/2019 10:44 AM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>>>> Thanks for updating your patch. The updated code seems fine.
>>>>
>>>> -Pavel
>>>>
>>>>> On 11 May 2019, at 05:01, Ivan Gerasimov<ivan.gerasimov at oracle.com>  wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>
>>>>> Please help review the updated fix.
>>>>>
>>>>> This new webrev includes changes suggested by Pavel, Peter and Roger.
>>>>>
>>>>> BUGURL:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223593
>>>>> WEBREV:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8223593/01/webrev/
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the behavior of j.n.f.Files.readAllBytes() has changed slightly, so now it *may* be possible to read a file larger than (Integer.MAX_VALUE - 8), if VM is able to allocate that large array.
>>>>>
>>>>> With kind regards,
>>>>> Ivan
>>>>>
>>>>> On 5/8/19 6:50 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
>>>>>> Hello!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jdk has several places with similar logic:  an array needs to be reallocated (by at least some defined amount), taking into account the maximum allowed size of arrays.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's clearly an opportunity for refactoring, so it is proposed to introduce a dedicated utility method for calculating the best new size of an array.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you please help review this enhancement?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> BUGURL:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223593
>>>>>> WEBREV:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8223593/00/webrev/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mach5 job ran fine.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks in advance!
>>>>>>
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> With kind regards,
>>>>> Ivan Gerasimov
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> With kind regards,
>> Ivan Gerasimov
>

-- 
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov