RFR: JDK-8134373: explore potential uses of convenience factories within the JDK
stuart.marks at oracle.com
Mon Oct 10 18:57:02 UTC 2016
OK, I'll sponsor this. I need to run this through our internal testing system
before pushing it. I'll follow up here with results.
On 10/10/16 1:34 AM, Jonathan Bluett-Duncan wrote:
> Hi all,
> Would you kindly review the latest webrev now?
> Thanks in advance.
> Kind regards,
> On 7 October 2016 at 21:59, Patrick Reinhart <patrick at reini.net
> <mailto:patrick at reini.net>> wrote:
> Here is the latest webrev:
> > Am 07.10.2016 um 12:00 schrieb Jonathan Bluett-Duncan
> <jbluettduncan at gmail.com <mailto:jbluettduncan at gmail.com>>:
> > Hi all,
> > Sorry for the delayed response, I've been busy lately with university
> and other things.
> > Thank you all for your comments. I'll leave the DateTimeFormatter
> comment in, as you requested Stephen and Roger, and I'll work again with
> Patrick as soon as I'm ready.
> > Kind regards,
> > Jonathan
> > On 6 October 2016 at 09:38, Stephen Colebourne <scolebourne at joda.org
> <mailto:scolebourne at joda.org>> wrote:
> > On 6 October 2016 at 00:00, Stuart Marks <stuart.marks at oracle.com
> <mailto:stuart.marks at oracle.com>> wrote:
> > >> I think you should perform no change to DateTimeFormatter (other than
> > >> a comment) as part of this changeset. The behaviour of that
> > >> DateTimeFormatter method is subtle, and I now suspect that what we
> > >> have there might be the best option.
> > >
> > > I had recommended removing the comment from DateTimeFormatter, but if
> > > Stephen wants the comment in, that's fine with me. In fact I'll defer to
> > > what Stephen (and Roger Riggs) want with this code, since they're the
> > > maintainers.
> > I think it makes sense to leave the new comment in. All further change
> > should be under 8167222.
> > Stephen
More information about the core-libs-dev