> On Jun 25, 2016, at 7:50 AM, Valerie Peng <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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.
I see. > > 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? Since you mentioned "major" and "minor" in the spec, we have to define it. Either referring to the Version class, or define one inside Provider. My preference is later, with a regex /(^\d+(\.\d+)?)/, which is a superset of Version. --Max > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 >
