RFR: 8231640: (prop) Canonical property storage [v15]

Jaikiran Pai jpai at openjdk.java.net
Wed Sep 15 05:56:48 UTC 2021

On Tue, 14 Sep 2021 18:11:00 GMT, Roger Riggs <rriggs at openjdk.org> wrote:

> Since there is no longer a need to format an arbitrary date, I'd suggest going back to the original Date.toString() code. It removes the need to replicate the format using DateTimeBuilder and is known to be the same as before.

Done. I pushed an update to the PR which switches back to using Date.toString() for the date comment. It also does a minor adjustment to the javadoc to clarify this behaviour.

> test/jdk/java/util/Properties/StoreReproducibilityTest.java line 429:
>> 427:         try {
>> 428:             parsedDate = new SimpleDateFormat(dateCommentFormat).parse(dateComment);
>> 429:         } catch (ParseException pe) {
> Its slightly better to use the same date formatting and parsing APIs consistently.
> DateTimeFormatter.parse could be used here since DateTimeFormatter was used above. 
> (Though the pattern uses "yyyy" instead of "uuuu" for the year.)

Done. I've updated the tests to use a consistent API for parsing these date comments in the stored files. They now use the DateTimeFormatter APIs along with the right pattern ("uuuu") to match the output of Date.toString().


PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/5372

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list