Hi Roger,
> Am 30.11.2016 um 20:01 schrieb Roger Riggs <[email protected]>:
>
> Hi Patrick,
>
> I have reservations about trying to get this into JDK 9. Because it is a new
> API,
> it should have some bake time before feature freeze and it needs further
> review
> from the compatibility point of view and resources committed to create new
> JCK tests.
> Many folks are fully loaded also trying to hit feature freeze.
I did not expect that the first iteration is good enough. I took this issue,
because it was
marked for target 9. So I’m open for other views.
> A few comments on the webrev:
>
> - 359: The withAutoFlush javadoc should be more explicit about when a new vs
> the same
> PrintWriter is returned. The ‚activates‘ verb doesn't convey any sense
> about the instance that is returned.
359 * Activates {@code printf}, or {@code format} methods to
automatically
360 * flush the output buffer after writing their data.
Would the following be better:
Returns the same instance if {@code autoFlush} does not change the
actual setting, otherwise a new instance with changed behavior is returned
> - 375: Can this use the new private constructor that will handle psOut.
Here I can not get hold on the encoding at this point or have I missed
something here?
> -320, etc. The @since should be 1 or 2 digits to match the version scheme
It seems, that I’m still not in the new version scheme ;-) - should be 9 - I
will change that, the same for 343
> - no tests for new PrintWriter(OutputStream <non-null>, Charset)
I will also add that
> - From the test file name 'FailngConstructors", its not clear that's the
> right place
> for the positive tests of the withAutoFlush methods.
I will move that out to a new Test as soon we are more clear about the other
points
> That's all I have time for at the moment,
>
> Regards, Roger
>
>
> On 11/29/2016 4:15 PM, Patrick Reinhart wrote:
>> Does anyone sponsor this fix?
>>
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~reinhapa/reviews/8167648/webrev.00
>>
>> -Patrick
>
