Hmm, as I re-read it, I think it's too ambiguous to include '.' as a
separator as it's possible to interpret the info as optional trailing
info instead of version number as your earlier comment mentioned.
I updated the @implNote and removed the '.' as the separator for the
other info. I think this one should be clearer...
Webrev is updated in place with only Provider.java, i.e. see line
233-248 of
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~valeriep/8130181/webrev.02/src/java.base/share/classes/java/security/Provider.java.sdiff.html
(Will update CCC after webrev is finalized)
Thanks,
Valerie
On 6/30/2016 7:18 PM, Wang Weijun wrote:
One tiny thing, in Provider.java:
244 *{@code getVersion()}, by filtering out the trailing optional
information
There should be a space between * and {.
I am not sure if this is worth a clarification, that when version string is "1.2.3", we would like "1.2"
being the version number and "3" being other information. Do you think your @implNote also allows "1" being
interpreted as version number and "2.3" as other information? A regex is greedy but the @implNote does not imply it.
--Max
On Jul 1, 2016, at 9:12 AM, Valerie Peng <valerie.p...@oracle.com> wrote:
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 <valerie.p...@oracle.com> 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 <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
