Hi Ivan, Roger,
What about "calcNewLength" ?
The word "new" gives enough hint as to what the method does - it
calculates the length of new array to be allocated instead of old one.
Regards, Peter
On 5/17/19 8:45 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hi Roger!
I think that not only the name, but also the arguments compose the
signature.
So, calcLength(oldLength, minGrowth, prefGrowth) is meant to be read
as "given old length and the amount(s) to grow, calculate the new
length".
And since this method is placed into ArraysSupport, it should be clear
that it is an array's length.
I understand that in certain contexts size may sound more natural than
length.
Here, however, using 'length' should be a hint that we're dealing with
array.length.
With kind regards,
Ivan
On 5/17/19 10:35 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Ivan,
The new calcLength method name is too generic, it does not say enough
about its function.
There is no indication that the purpose is to resize an array.
As for size vs length, sometime size is more evocative of the
function being performed
than 'length' and is more natural. In most cases, size and length
are understood to be synonyms
and capacity is a very apt term for how many elements can be held.
Can I recommend resizedLength.
Regards, Roger
On 05/15/2019 10:47 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Thank you Pavel and Roger for reviewing!
I apologize for reiterating this.
After off-line discussion with Stuart Marks, the fix was modified
once again.
!!
The modifications were mostly stylistic: The used terminology now
reflects that we work with arrays (thus 'length', not 'size' or
'capacity').
Functionally, the fix remains exactly the same.
BUGURL: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223593
WEBREV: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8223593/02/webrev/
With kind regards,
Ivan
On 5/14/19 7:50 AM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi Ivan,
The updated patch looks fine.
Strictly speaking, the change to Files.readAllBytes is not
indicated by the bug report
so please update or comment on the bug report to mention that change.
Thanks, Roger
On 05/13/2019 10:44 AM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
Thanks for updating your patch. The updated code seems fine.
-Pavel
On 11 May 2019, at 05:01, Ivan
Gerasimov<ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com> wrote:
Hello!
Please help review the updated fix.
This new webrev includes changes suggested by Pavel, Peter and
Roger.
BUGURL:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223593
WEBREV:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8223593/01/webrev/
Please note that the behavior of j.n.f.Files.readAllBytes() has
changed slightly, so now it *may* be possible to read a file
larger than (Integer.MAX_VALUE - 8), if VM is able to allocate
that large array.
With kind regards,
Ivan
On 5/8/19 6:50 PM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hello!
Jdk has several places with similar logic: an array needs to be
reallocated (by at least some defined amount), taking into
account the maximum allowed size of arrays.
There's clearly an opportunity for refactoring, so it is
proposed to introduce a dedicated utility method for calculating
the best new size of an array.
Would you please help review this enhancement?
BUGURL:https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8223593
WEBREV:http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8223593/00/webrev/
Mach5 job ran fine.
Thanks in advance!
--
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov
--
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov
