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

[Wang Weijun]

One tiny thing, in Provider.java:

 244      *{@code getVersion()}, by filtering out the trailing optional information

There should be a space between * and {.

I am not sure if this is worth a clarification, that when version string is "1.2.3", we would like "1.2" being the version number and "3" being other information. Do you think your @implNote also allows "1" being interpreted as version number and "2.3" as other information? A regex is greedy but the @implNote does not imply it.

--Max

> On Jul 1, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.peng at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 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
>