[9] RFR 8130181: Deprecate java.security.Provider(String, double, String), add Provider(String, String, String)

[Valerie Peng]

Webrev updated with your suggestion: 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8130181/webrev.02/
Thanks,
Valerie


On 6/24/2016 5:05 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
>> On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.peng at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>> I thought about it, but as Provider object is serializable, if the field is of new type Runtime.Version class, the (de-)serialization against older releases may break.
> I see.
>
>> What exactly is the version style that you have in mind then? I think the major.minor thing is quite reasonable.
>> 1.9d does not really look like a version to me. Do you want to special handling this just because the earlier version is a double?
> Since you mentioned "major" and "minor" in the spec, we have to define it. Either referring to the Version class, or define one inside Provider. My preference is later, with a regex /(^\d+(\.\d+)?)/, which is a superset of Version.
>
> --Max
>
>> Valerie
>>
>> On 6/23/2016 6:59 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
>>> If you mandate the use of Verona version style, can we just use the Version class in the constructor?
>>>
>>>> On Jun 24, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.peng at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, we have to define something for the version syntax and how it converts to the legacy double version.
>>>> I think it makes sense to follow the Verona JEP as that's the JDK version syntax which seems to fit the normal convention of release numbering.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe we can clarify major and minor by referring to java.lang.Runtime.Version class?
>>>> Valerie