Code Review Request for 4533691 (add Collections.EMPTY_SORTED_SET)
jason_mehrens at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 13 10:30:16 PST 2011
>> 2. The comparator method is using raw types.
>The SortedSet.comparator() method spec allows returning of null.
Right. But, the return type of the implementation is a raw comparator not Comparator<? super E> defined by the interface.
>> 4. Only the IAE if statement is need for your range checks. NPE and CCE will occur in that if statement by default. CCE lacks a descriptive message the you get if you used Class.cast or just an implicit cast.
>True. I'm trying to be clear in the code that the parameters are checked for these things. Is this an optimization/style issue? What is the preference here?
My thought is that implicit code is more compact and produces a more descriptive error message on CCE.
>> 5. What if I want to create an empty set sorted set with supplied comparator?
>Extend EmptySortedSet and override the comparator method. I believe most uses of EmptySortedSet will not want to supply their own Comparator. I can support a suppliable Comparator if there's enough interest.
Extending is not an option because EmptySortedSet is private class, as it should be. Since the EmptySortedSet is serializable, adding support later on gets ugly.
>>6. Why not implement an EmptyNavigableSet instead since the bug was entered before 1.6?
>Is NavigableSet preferrable to SortedSet? There is currently no request for EmptyNavigableSet, just EmptySortedSet.
My understanding is that NavigableSet is preferred to SortedSet. See: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=6415641
> Subject: Re: Code Review Request for 4533691 (add Collections.EMPTY_SORTED_SET)
> From: mike.duigou at oracle.com
> Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2011 09:29:09 -0700
> To: David.Holmes at oracle.com
> CC: core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
> On Nov 3 2011, at 17:40 , David Holmes wrote:
> > Mike,
> > I see that you have pushed a version of this change and that I was listed as a reviewer. However I never saw an updated webrev and there was no response to my query below. In fact I never saw any response to any of the reviewers comments on this.
> I missed your question about the range on an empty set. My comments below.
> Removing EMPTY_SORTED_SET was the only other comment to my knowledge. Darryl adapted the patch and EMPTY_SORTED_SET was not part of the commit. Since the change was removal of a newly proposed field an additional review cycle wasn't thought to be necessary. Perhaps incorrectly?
More information about the core-libs-dev