Code Review Request for Bug #5035850
david.holmes at oracle.com
Tue Nov 22 22:39:01 PST 2011
On 23/11/2011 4:32 AM, Darryl Mocek wrote:
> I've resolved all issues given in the comments. Please review the
> update. Webrev can be found here:
Minor nit: in the test you took Mike's suggestion for the three
conditions to check but seem to have overlooked the slightly different
wording Mike used in the error messages and have associated the messages
with different conditions ie "match" vs "equals"
Also wondering if we need to be concerned with closing the streams in
case the test runs in samevm or agentvm ? Maybe use try-with-resources.
> On 11/20/2011 05:31 PM, David Holmes wrote:
>> On 21/11/2011 5:39 AM, Rémi Forax wrote:
>>> On 11/20/2011 08:14 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>> On 18/11/2011 18:27, Darryl Mocek wrote:
>>>>> Hello. Please review this patch to fix a serialization issue with
>>>>> String's CASE_INSENSITIVE_ORDER. If you serialize, then deserialize
>>>>> the class, the equals test will fail in the comparison of what was
>>>>> serialized with what was deserialized. Webrev, including test, can be
>>>>> found here: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sherman/darryl/5035850/webrev
>>>> This looks okay to me but I would suggest adding a comment to
>>>> readResolve, maybe something like "Replaces the de-serialized object"
>>>> as the causal reader may not know what this method is for.
>>> Hi Darryl, Hi Alan,
>>> additional comments: in the test, you don't need to initialize result to
>>> null because you can remove the catch(Exception) block
>> Related to this I was going to say that if you get an unexpected
>> exception I believe you should simply let it propagate to indicate
>>> and also you should use == instead of equals for the last check.
>> Given equals() is not overridden the two are equivalent. But testing
>> both as Mike suggests would catch any erroneous redefinition of
>> equals() in the future.
More information about the core-libs-dev