Hi,
updated webrev:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8041972/webrev.11
Changes:
- Remove use of IllegalArgumentException in favor of
IndexOutOfBoundsException/NumberFormatException, making the new methods
behave in line with how String.substring wouldat some edge cases:
"100".substring(3)equals "", thus Integer.parseInt("100", 10, 3) now
throw NumberFormatException, while Integer.parseInt("100", 10,
4)/"100".substring(4) will throw IOOB.
- For performance reasons the old and new methodshave been split
apart. This introduces some code duplication, but removes the need to
add special checks in some places.
- Added more tests
/Claes
On 06/27/2014 10:54 AM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Jun 26, 2014, at 6:53 PM, Claes Redestad <claes.redes...@oracle.com> wrote:
On 06/25/2014 06:43 PM, Paul Sandoz wrote:
On Jun 19, 2014, at 7:39 PM, Claes Redestad <claes.redes...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi,
an updated webrev with reworked, public methods is available here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~redestad/8041972/webrev.8/
Reviews are yet again appreciated!
I think "if (s == null)" or "Objects.requireNonNull(s)" is preferable to
s.getClass(). (I am informed by those more knowledgeable than i that the latter also has poorer
performance in the client compiler.)
Agreed. Using s.getClass() was necessitated to retain performance using default
compiler (-XX:+TieredCompilation) in the microbenchmarks I've been using, and
going back to testing with C1 (via means of -XX:TieredStartAtLevel=1-3), it's
apparent that the patch can cause a regression with the client compiler that I
hadn't checked.It even looks like C2 alone (-XX:-TieredCompilation) suffers
slightly.
Changing to Objects.requireNonNull doesn't seem to make things better, though.
Rather the regression seem to be due to C1 (and in some ways even C2) not
dealing very well with the increased degrees of freedoms in the new methods, so
I'm currently considering splitting apart the implementations to keep the old
implementations of parseX(String[, int]) untouched while duplicating some code
to build the new methods. Ugly, but I guess it's anecessary evil here.
Ok. Perhaps it might be possible to place the specifics of constraint checking
in public methods, but they defer to a general private method that can assume
it's arguments are safe (or such arguments are checked by other method calls
e.g. CS.charAt)
Related to the above, it might be preferable to retain the existing semantics
of throwing NumberFormatException on a null string value, since someone might
switch between parseInt(String ) and parseInt(String, int, int, int) and the
null will then slip through the catch of NumberFormatException.
Consider Integer.parseInt(s.substring(1)) and Integer.parseInt(s, 10, 1): the
first would throw NullPointerException currently if s == null, while the latter
instead would start throwing NumberFormatException. I think we should favor
throwing a NPE here. I'd argue that the risk that someone changes to any of the
range-based alternatives when they aren't replacing a call to substring or
similar are slim to none.
A good point.
You could just use IndexOutOfBoundsException for the case of beginIndex < 0 and
beginIndex >= endIndex and endIndex > s.length(), as is similarly the case for
String.substring. Again, like previously, switching between parseInt(String, int, int)
parseInt(String, int, int, int) requires no additional catching. You might want to add a
comment in the code that some IndexOutOfBoundsException exceptions are implicit via
calls to s.charAt (i did a double take before realizing :-) ).
Fair points. I could argue String.substring(int, int),
StringBuilder.append(CharSequence, int, int)etc are wrong, but I guess that
might be a losing battle. :-)
Right, if we were starting again it might be different but i think consistency
is important.
Integer.requireNonEmpty could be a static package private method on String (or
perhaps even static public, it seems useful), plus i would not bother with the
static import in this case.
The requireNonEmpty throws NumberFormatException to keep compatibility with the
old methods, so it wouldn't make much sense to add that to String.
Doh! what was i thinking. If it stays perhaps place it as a package private
method on Number.
If I split the parseX(String... and parseX(CharSequence... implementations as I
intend to, this method will be redundant though.
Ok.
Paul.
