I thought about it, but as Provider object is serializable, if the field
is of new type Runtime.Version class, the (de-)serialization against
older releases may break.
What exactly is the version style that you have in mind then? I think
the major.minor thing is quite reasonable.
1.9d does not really look like a version to me. Do you want to special
handling this just because the earlier version is a double?
Valerie
On 6/23/2016 6:59 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
If you mandate the use of Verona version style, can we just use the Version
class in the constructor?
On Jun 24, 2016, at 9:56 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote:
Well, we have to define something for the version syntax and how it converts to
the legacy double version.
I think it makes sense to follow the Verona JEP as that's the JDK version
syntax which seems to fit the normal convention of release numbering.
Maybe we can clarify major and minor by referring to java.lang.Runtime.Version
class?
Valerie
