On 5/20/19 11:11 AM, Ivan Gerasimov wrote:
Hi Peter!
On 5/19/19 11:17 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
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.
Yes, I think it was one of intermediate names.
But then, it seemed that the New part is redundant, as it does not add
much: "calculate length" and "calculate new length" sound very
similar, while the former is shorter.
I feel it does add a tiny bit to clarity. This is internal API, so it's
not that important, and from its use it is immediately obvious what's
going on, but even you felt that saying:
> calcLength(oldLength, minGrowth, prefGrowth) is meant to be read as
"given old length and the amount(s) to grow, calculate the new length"
is more clear than:
> calcLength(oldLength, minGrowth, prefGrowth) is meant to be read as
"given old length and the amount(s) to grow, calculate the length"
If a word is redundant then it is "calc". It is obvious that any
function calculates something. So what about "newLength()" ?
Regards, Peter
With kind regards,
Ivan
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
