[threeten-dev] TzdbZoneRulesCompiler

[Stephen Colebourne]

On 14 December 2012 23:25, Xueming Shen <xueming.shen at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/12 2:56 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>> Taking a step back, I think that ZoneRules probably does not need to
>> be an interface. There are only two sensible implementations - single
>> offset and complex, as per StandardZoneRules.
>
>
> One benefit of having ZoneRules to be interface is that other implementation
> does
> not have to have their implementation bundled with the existing
> implementation.
> I was hoping we can get rid of the ZOTR as well, since it's kinda specific
> to how the
> tzdb is defined. But if other implementation will have to deal with ZOT and
> ZOTR
> anyway, it might not be too bad that they have to build the rule based on
> the
> specified constructor/factory method (I'm sure you want to make sure the
> class
> ZoneRules to be final as well).

With ZOT and ZOTR public with factory methods,it makes sense to have
ZoneRules also final. It certainly means that they more clearly
justify their place in the API.

It also turns out that the internal implementation of
StandardZoneRules is complex, and I don't really want others
replicating that. So, I find lots of arguments for a class-based
ZoneRules and not many for the interface.

Stephen


> Yes, have a concrete ZoneRules with public create and access methods
> definitely
> make the life of the compiler tool easier.
>
> -Sherman
>
>>
>> If we made this change, then StandardZoneRules and the rules inside
>> ZoneOffset would merge inside ZoneRules. Then, all the serialization
>> would stay in the core. The tool would simply create the necessary
>> items to pass to the standard public factory on ZoneRules.
>>
>> So, what you've done makes sense given where we are, but I think there
>> is a better option.
>>
>>
>
>
>