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

[roger riggs]

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 Has the suggestion been withdrawn?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/
>>