On Dec 6 2013, at 02:07 , Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 06/12/13 08:38, Paul Sandoz wrote:
>> On Dec 5, 2013, at 9:29 PM, Doug Lea <d...@cs.oswego.edu> wrote:
>>> On 12/05/2013 03:18 PM, Brent Christian wrote:
>>>> I'm curious about why this was done:
>>>>
>>>> *** 4452,4462 ****
>>>> public final boolean removeAll(Collection<?> c) {
>>>> ! Objects.requireNonNull(c);
>>>> boolean modified = false;
>>>> --- 4495,4505 ----
>>>> public final boolean removeAll(Collection<?> c) {
>>>> ! if (c == null) throw new NullPointerException();
>>>> boolean modified = false;
>>>
>>> It wasn't actually done. In part as a way to keep base jsr166
>>> sources for CHM and most other existing classes as JDK7-compatible
>>> as possible, the jsr166 versions always use the explicit form.
>>> For this update, the Oracle-initiated changes that hadn't been in
>>> jsr166 versions don't appear.
>>>
>>
>> My preference is to keep CHM (and other classes) in 8 as close as possible
>> to CHM in 166, otherwise it just makes it harder to apply fixes. So i
>> deliberately took the 166 version of the null checks.
>
> Agreed. It is too easy to miss changes and make mistakes otherwise.
Agreed here as well.
Mike
>
> -Chris.
>
>> I tend to take sources from 166, copy them into the JDK overwriting the
>> existing sources, and then carefully go through the diffs (via the IDE)
>> selectively applying. We already have one annoying diff related to
>> @Deprecated which is in 166 but not in CHM and that is extremely easy to
>> overlook.
>>
>> Paul.
>>
