On Fri, 24 Mar 2023 19:28:57 GMT, Sergey Tsypanov <stsypa...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Meant that you should verify that something like this, which just add a
>> little padding, doesn't regress with your changes:
>>
>> DateTimeFormatter dtf = new DateTimeFormatterBuilder()
>> .appendLiteral("Year:")
>> .padNext(5)
>> .appendValue(ChronoField.YEAR)
>> .toFormatter();
>> ...
>> dtf.format(LocalDateTime.now());
>>
>> And similar for effectively no padding (`.padNext(4)` in the above example).
>> As this API might often be used to ensure short 2-4 char fields are
>> correctly padded I think it's important that we're not adding overhead to
>> such use cases.
>
> Added benchmark for this
Special casing for len == 0 and keeping the existing buf.insert for len == 1
would avoid object creation except when it would improve performance.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12131#discussion_r1164453452
