Webrev updated with your suggestion:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8130181/webrev.02/
Thanks,
Valerie
On 6/24/2016 5:05 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
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
