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

[Valerie Peng]

Hmm, as I re-read it, I think it's too ambiguous to include '.' as a 
separator as it's possible to interpret the info as optional trailing 
info instead of version number as your earlier comment mentioned.
I updated the @implNote and removed the '.' as the separator for the 
other info. I think this one should be clearer...
Webrev is updated in place with only Provider.java, i.e. see line 
233-248 of 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8130181/webrev.02/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Provider.java.sdiff.html

(Will update CCC after webrev is finalized)
Thanks,
Valerie

On 6/30/2016 7:18 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
> 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