[REFRESH] JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8035279: Clean up internal deprecations in BigInteger
brian.burkhalter at oracle.com
Sat Mar 1 01:53:18 UTC 2014
On Feb 28, 2014, at 5:35 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> This is pretty good. After this long, strange trip through the JMM, restoring the sentinel values to zeroes and renaming the fields to be explicit about how they represent the actual values seems to be the best approach. Paul's suggestion about using the term "stable value" in comments is good too.
> I took a look at the serialization stuff. The actual serialized form hasn't changed, so there should be no compatibility here with previous versions.
For the above, good!
> There are some things in the serialization doc that ought to be brought up to date, though. Note that the docs for serialPersistentFields, readObject, and writeObject appear in the javadoc output, in the "Serialized Form" page, even though these members are private!
> Per another of Paul's comments, the @serial tag should be removed from bitCountPlusOne, bitLengthPlusOne, and lowestSetBitPlusTwo, since these fields do not appear in the serialized representation.
Yes, I was wondering about that.
> The fields bitCount, bitLength, and lowestSetBit appear in the serialized form only for backward compatibility and are otherwise ignored, so their @serialField entries should just say that instead of describing how they were formerly used. Also, firstNonzeroByteNum is missing a @serialField entry, and it should have the same description as the others.
> Typo at 4236-4237, it says "be\ndefault" instead of "by\ndefault".
> The comment at lines 4242-4246 should simply be removed. The first and third sentences are redundant with other docs. The second sentence, "The magnitude field is used as a temporary store for the byte array that is deserialized" is incorrect, as there is no longer a 'magnitude' field; a local is used instead.
> The @serialData tag at line 4316 for writeObject is misused; this is really intended for *extra* serial data written by writeObject after the writeFields() or defaultWriteObject() call, which doesn't occur here. It might be worth being explicit in writeObject's doc comment about writing -1's and -2's as the values for bitCount, bitLength, lowestSetBit, and firstNonzeroByteNum for compatibility with older implementations, even though current implementations will ignore these values.
I will make the suggested updates and repost an updated webrev, probably on Monday.
Thanks for the detailed review!
More information about the core-libs-dev