[REFRESH] JDK 9 RFR of JDK-8035279: Clean up internal deprecations in BigInteger
stuart.marks at oracle.com
Tue Mar 4 21:38:57 UTC 2014
OK, thanks for fixing up this stuff, even before I had mentioned it.
As far as I'm concerned the change is ready to go in, but as you mention we
still need to get (internal) approval for spec changes.
On 3/4/14 1:12 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote:
> Hi Stuart,
> On Mar 4, 2014, at 1:09 PM, Stuart Marks wrote:
>> Just a couple small items.
>> At line 4203, the type of magnitude should be byte instead of int. Whoops,
>> I could have sworn I wrote that in my previous review, but it must have gotten
>> dropped while I was editing. Sorry about that.
> I caught that myself and fixed it.
>> For the four compatibility fields in the serial form, the comment is
>> appears in the serialized for backward compatibility
>> Something is missing here. Should it say "appears in the serialized form for
>> backward compatibility" ?
> I also caught and fixed that.
>> The comment block at lines 4300-4306 is good. I might also add a note to say
>> these values are compatible with older implementations.
> Will do (I'll refresh the updated webrev at the link below).
>>>> 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!
>>> Isn't this controlled by options passed to the javadoc tool as opposed to
>>> settings in the source code?
>> No, serialization is "special" in that all information about the serialized
>> form, including the docs these special private methods and fields, do appear
>> in the Serialized Form output, regardless of the javadoc tool arguments.
> Thanks for the clarification.
>>> I think I'll need another "thumbs up" as this has changed since Paul's
>>> approval was posted.
>> Paul is not available this week. If you want to make these corrections and
>> then just push the changeset, it's fine by me; I think it's had enough review.
> Sounds good.
> I think I have to get a CCC request approved first however but if the approval
> is in place I can push immediately thereafter.
More information about the core-libs-dev