It looks to me like there are several different changes here.
It seems to me that using standard library methods for ArrayFill and
SystemProperties is a sensible change.
I'm not sure about the other change as it does affect the behaviour,
and does look more complicated.
Perhaps it could be recast?
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 at 20:05, Gary Gregory <garydgreg...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hello Emmanuel,
>
> Uh, no, don't be disingenuous by showing 3 lines, the commit is many pages
> long of diff. All of it is -1 as it increases the code complexity, increase
> code duplication, and adds the anti-pattern of throwing RuntimeException
> more than once.
>
> Please revert.
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2024, 2:05 PM Emmanuel Bourg <ebo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi Gary,
> >
> > Le 24/10/2024 à 19:25, Gary Gregory a écrit :
> >
> > > No copypasta, please. I want to reduce code patterns that are duplicated
> > > all over the place.
> >
> > What do you mean by "copypasta"? Are you concerned about the maintenance
> > cost of the 3 lines of reflection code appearing twice in
> > Pack200UnpackerAdapter?
> >
> > Field field = FilterInputStream.class.getDeclaredField("in");
> > field.setAccessible(true);
> > return (InputStream) field.get(filterInputStream);
> >
> > Emmanuel Bourg
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
