Thanks again Daniel and Lance!
Joe
On 6/21/2014 3:32 AM, Lance @ Oracle wrote:
Agree this is better and cleaner!
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance
Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
<tel:+1.781.442.2037>
Oracle Java Engineering
1 Network Drive <x-apple-data-detectors://34/0>
Burlington, MA 01803 <x-apple-data-detectors://34/0>
lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com>
Sent from my iPad
On Jun 21, 2014, at 4:27 AM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com
<mailto:daniel.fu...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Thanks Joe!
This is much cleaner indeed :-)
-- daniel
On 6/21/14 4:36 AM, huizhe wang wrote:
Thanks Daniel, Lance.
On 6/20/2014 3:02 AM, Daniel Fuchs wrote:
Hi Joe,
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
It really helps reviewing the fix!
Glad to know it helps. I thought this part of spec could be
unfamiliar to people.
This looks reasonable to me. One minor nit is that you
could turn:
769 BigInteger maxintAsBigInteger =
BigInteger.valueOf((long) Integer.MAX_VALUE);
Good catch! I was going to do so but then forgot.
I also refactored the check method so that the checks can be done in
one loop: 24 lines of code instead of the original 170. I feel good :-)
The other changes are purely clean-up and in one case, JavaDoc.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/5077522/webrev/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejoehw/jdk9/5077522/webrev/>
Best regards,
Joe
into a static final constant in the class.
best regards,
-- daniel
On 6/17/14 9:19 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi,
This is a long time compatibility issue: Duration.compare returns
equal
for INDETERMINATE relations defined in XML Schema standard
(http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#duration-order) as listed in the
following table:
Relation
P*1Y* > P*364D* <> P*365D* <> P*366D* < P*367D*
P*1M* > P*27D* <> P*28D* <> P*29D* <> P*30D* <>
P*31D* < P*32D*
P*5M* > P*149D* <> P*150D* <> P*151D* <> P*152D*
<>
P*153D* < P*154D*
The order-relation of two Duratoin values x and y is x < y iff s+x
< s+y
for each qualified datetime s listed below:
* 1696-09-01T00:00:00Z
* 1697-02-01T00:00:00Z
* 1903-03-01T00:00:00Z
* 1903-07-01T00:00:00Z
The original implementation used Unix epoch, that is, 00:00:00 UTC
on 1
January 1970, as s in the above calculation which violated the above
specification. A patch during JDK 6 development added correct
implementation of the spec, but it was unfortunately added after the
original calculation using Epoch time.
*The fix to the issue therefore is simply removing the calculation
using
Epoch time.* I also consolidated the tedious max field value
checks into
a method called checkMaxValue.
*Patch:*
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/5077522/webrev/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejoehw/jdk9/5077522/webrev/>
Test:
testCompareWithInderterminateRelation: this is a copy of the JCK test
that tests INDETERMINATE relations.
testVerifyOtherRelations: this is added to verify edge cases, e.g.
+- 1
second to the original test cases. For example, to the original test:
PT525600M is P365D <> P1Y, I added "PT525599M59S", "<", "P1Y", and
PT527040M -> P366D <> P1Y, "PT527040M1S", ">", "P1Y"
Below is the test result:
Comparing P1Y and P365D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P1Y and P366D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P1M and P28D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P1M and P29D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P1M and P30D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P1M and P31D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P5M and P150D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P5M and P151D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P5M and P152D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P5M and P153D: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT2419200S and P1M: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT2678400S and P1M: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT31536000S and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT31622400S and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT525600M and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT527040M and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT8760H and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
Comparing PT8784H and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P365D and P1Y: INDETERMINATE
Comparing P1Y and P364D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Comparing P1Y and P367D: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing P1Y2D and P366D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Comparing P1M and P27D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Comparing P1M and P32D: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing P1M and P31DT1H: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing P5M and P149D: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Comparing P5M and P154D: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing P5M and P153DT1H: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing PT2419199S and P1M: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing PT2678401S and P1M: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Comparing PT31535999S and P1Y: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing PT31622401S and P1Y: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Comparing PT525599M59S and P1Y: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing PT527040M1S and P1Y: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Comparing PT8759H59M59S and P1Y: expected: LESSER actual: LESSER
Comparing PT8784H1S and P1Y: expected: GREATER actual: GREATER
Number of tests passed: 36
Number of tests failed: 0
Thanks,
Joe
