On Thu, 16 Jul 2026 18:45:11 GMT, Justin Lu <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Sholto has updated the pull request incrementally with two additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - 8272194: remove autoCloseArguments from Date/Timestamp
>> LocalDate/LocalDateTime conversion tests
>> - 8272194: remove outdated comment in Timestamp LocalDateTime conversion
>
> src/java.sql/share/classes/java/sql/Date.java line 287:
>
>> 285: * providing a faster code path for almost 1970 years.
>> 286: */
>> 287: private static final long TWO_AD_AT_UTC_EPOCH_MILLIS =
>> -62104233600000L;
>
> We can make this package-private and have `Timestamp` use it as well to
> reduce some duplication.
I've left this private as Timestamp no longer needs this constant as it is
directly using the new `Date.toProlepticYear`.
> src/java.sql/share/classes/java/sql/Date.java line 324:
>
>> 322: // 0002-01-01 are AD, we can use a much faster local date
>> derivation
>> 323: // for these dates.
>> 324: if (getTime() >= TWO_AD_AT_UTC_EPOCH_MILLIS) {
>
> We can pull out the shared logic here and in `Timestamp` and create a static
> package-private helper in `java.sql.Date`.
>
> Something like
>
>
> static int toProlepticYear(long millis, int year) {
> if slow path
> set calendar using setTimeInMillis
> if calendar is in BC
> adjust year
> return year;
>
> }
>
>
> The helper can call `GregorianCalendar.setTimeInMillis(...)` instead of
> `GregorianCalendar.setTime(...)`. That lets us pass its millisecond value via
> `getTime()` rather than having to pass `this` as a `java.util.Date` to the
> helper method. I also think within the helper, you can inverse the `getTime()
> >= TWO_AD_AT_UTC_EPOCH_MILLIS` conditional to simplify the logic some more.
>
> After that, `toLocalDate` need only look something like,
>
>
> return LocalDate.of(
> toProlepticYear(getTime(), getYear() + 1900),
> getMonth() + 1,
> getDate());
Yup great idea. I have updated this as suggested.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31808#discussion_r3602861569
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/31808#discussion_r3602866339
