Hi Naoto,
That access via reflection is going to go away sometime; so I'm not too
concerned about
maintaining compatibility of the internal implementation.
I think I'd rather see the memory savings, however small.
Let see if anyone else has a recommendation.
Roger
On 9/4/18 4:12 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
Hi Roger,
Yes, I considered that too, but did not change the behavior and just
to maintain the field consistent. I agree that it would not be
observable via the public Calendar API, but some apps (like how the
submitter found it) may be doing something using reflection.
Naoto
On 9/4/18 12:31 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Naoto,
The spec for clone doesn't say whether the clone should share or not
share the TimeZone.
Did you consider that if sharedZone was true , *not* to clone the
TimeZone?
It would still get cloned when requested from getTimeZone().
This does seem somewhat safer not to change the cloning behavior but
I don't think the behavior would be observable.
The current code and test is fine, except for reducing the potential
for sharing the TimeZone.
Thanks, Roger
On 9/4/2018 2:14 PM, Naoto Sato wrote:
Hello,
Please review the fix to the following issue:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8210142
The proposed fix is located at:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8210142/webrev.00/
The fix is a simple one line change, which is to make the sharedZone
field consistent with the cloned TimeZone instance in Calendar.clone().
Naoto
