On 8 May 2013, at 21:56, Mike Duigou <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On May 7 2013, at 10:13 , Chris Hegarty wrote:
>
>> On 05/07/2013 05:04 PM, Mike Duigou wrote:
>>> The "currently" MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN statement bothers me. Can we remove
>>> currently?
>>
>> No problem. That would read...
>>
>> "When the sub-array length reaches a {@linlplain #MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN
>> minimum granularity}, the sub-array is sorted using the appropriate
>> Arrays.sort method."
>
>
> linlplain -> linkplain
>
>>> I would expect to see currently if the numerical value of
>>> MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN was presented. We may change the threshold but we're
>>> otherwise committed to the constant name for the threshold.
>>
>> I really don't care much for MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN. I left it out from the
>> original push, then flip flopped a few times on it. I don't like {@value},
>> as the field would still need to be public, but not referenced in the docs.
>> I could be persuaded to go either way on it, but it is not worth spending
>> time on.
>
> One other issue with MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN is that, according to separate
> compilation rules, as a static final int the value of MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN
> can/will be compiled into code. The value isn't thereafter changeable except
> by recompiling everything which references it. In particular, injecting a
> different value into Arrays.MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN would likely have no effect
> at runtime. This situation seems a little strange/unhelpful to me. It
> wouldn't even be practically changeable between releases since code compiled
> with Java 8 would keep using that value even when running on future versions
> with a different value for MIN_ARRAY_SORT_GRAN.
Good point Mike. I guess the same argument could be made for putting any value
in the implementation detail. Any objection to completely removing any
reference to this?
-Chris
>
> Mike
>
