On Fri, 4 Mar 2022 23:05:56 GMT, Naoto Sato <na...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Supporting `IsoFields` temporal fields in chronologies that are similar to
>> ISO chronology. Corresponding CSR has also been drafted.
>
> Naoto Sato has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
> commit since the last revision:
>
> Addresses review comments
src/java.base/share/classes/java/time/chrono/Chronology.java line 794:
> 792: * @since 19
> 793: */
> 794: default boolean supportsIsoFields() {
I'm not a fan of this name, as it is inconsistent with the rest of JSR310 API,
which uses an `is` prefix for booleans. I suggested `isIsoLike` because the key
question is whether the chronology is "like" ISO. I would also be OK with
`isBasedOnIso`, `isDerivedFromIso`, `isIsoBased` or something similar. Another
risk here is limiting the method to refer only to `IsoFields`. While that is
the use case here, it isn't the case that the only fields that might be
affected are in `IsoFields`. Third parties may have their own fields that are
suitable for use with an ISO-like chronology.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/7683
