null parameter constructors in StringConverters

[John Hendrikx]

Aren't these constructors chained?  I believe it is quite common
practice to use nulls when calling a chained constructor to get a
default for that parameter.  If a certain type of convenience
constructor is missing, a caller can pass in `null` for the parameter
they'd like defaulted.  It's not too far-fetched to allow this **if**
there is a constructor where this parameter is omitted and is assigned a
default.

If anything, the constructors IMHO should document that for certain
parameters passing in `null` results in a specific default.

--John

On 18/08/2025 19:46, Nir Lisker wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> In DateTimeStringConverter, NumberStringConverter, and their
> subclasses, null parameters sent to the constructors are internally
> converted to default values. This is not specified, but it's how the
> implementation behaves. I'm working on some changes there and was
> thinking about changing the behavior to throw NPEs as it makes
> no sense to pass null into these and it's probably a bug more than
> anything.
>
> The LocalDate/Time converters specified the null-friendly behavior in
> their docs even though it doesn't make much sense there either.
>
> Are we allowed to change this?
>
> - Nir
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/openjfx-dev/attachments/20250818/16fb1939/attachment.htm>