[threeten-dev] Changing Chronology to an interface and AbstractChronology

[roger riggs]

Hi Stephen,

The basic split of Chronology is fine.

I'll proceed with that unless there is some additional value of the
generics on AbstractChronology  would be missed.


Roger

On 10/8/2013 1:19 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
> Personally I think that the IDE is where most people discover the
> methods, and that would be unaffected.. That said, I see your point.
>
> I think given the timescale, I'd rather ensure the interface change
> goes in. If you are uncomfortable with it I suggest leaving the
> generic methods part out.
>
> BTW, we cannot fix this later. The effect is small though, as it just
> means that the few implementors of chronology will have a little more
> work to do to give their users the best API. Beyond that I see no
> harm.
>
> Stephen
>
>
>
> On 8 October 2013 17:29, roger riggs <roger.riggs at oracle.com> wrote:
>> Hi Stephen,
>>
>> By applying the proposed change to AbstractChronology, the JapaneseDate
>> Javadoc
>> becomes much less informative and complete,  the only references to some
>> methods,
>> such as dateNow(), are in the tiny list of methods inherited from the
>> supertype.
>>
>> AbstractChronology duplicates the implementations of the default
>> methods of the interfaces (though they could just delegate).
>>
>> Javadoc:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/javadoc-chrono-interface-8025719/
>>
>>       webrev:
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-chrono-interface-8025719/
>>
>> The negative effects of adding generics to AbstractChronology seem to
>> outweigh
>> the benefits.
>>
>> Suggestions welcome,
>>
>> Roger
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 10/7/2013 6:42 PM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
>>> The webrev looks good.
>>>
>>> I think that the extended behaviour would be a good extension. I
>>> didn't implement it back then as I wasn't certain that the change to
>>> interface was going to happen.
>>>
>>> Stephen
>>>
>>>
>>> On 7 October 2013 21:13, roger riggs <roger.riggs at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>> Changing Chronology to an interface is a positive step as suggested by
>>>> #341
>>>> and JBS https://jbs.oracle.com/bugs/browse/JDK-8025719.
>>>>
>>>> The suggsted fix includes the definition AbstractChronology<D extends
>>>> ChronoLocalDate>
>>>> and proposes cleanup of the subclasses based on the generic type.
>>>> This feature was not present in the proposed patch.
>>>> Has the suggestion been withdrawn?
>>>>
>>>> Thank, Roger
>>>> [1] webrev:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-chrono-interface-8025719/
>>>>