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

[Wang Weijun]

> 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
>