RFR - 8132734: java.util.jar.* changes to support multi-release jar files
mandy.chung at oracle.com
Fri Jan 22 00:39:57 UTC 2016
> On Jan 21, 2016, at 3:49 PM, Steve Drach <steve.drach at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> I suspected this is a bike shed candidate. I think Release._9 is nicer and it conveys the same information in a less cluttered way than Release.RELEASE_9.
>> Yes a bike shed, I'm just saying that Release._9 looks odd/inconsistent when we have SourceVersion.RELEASE_9 elsewhere. Maybe there has been discussion on this topic already. With a static import then RELEASE_9 isn't too bad.
> I’ll leave this as an open issue for awhile in case I get another reviewer that feels as strongly about it you do, or as I do.
I only started looking at some files on the webrev. Release._9 catches my attention too and it looks very odd. I think RELEASE_9 is a much better constant name than _9.
More information about the core-libs-dev