On Sun, 6 Oct 2024 14:29:09 GMT, Chen Liang <li...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This Pull Requests proposes an implementation for >> [JDK-8341566](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341566): Adding the new >> method `public static Reader Reader.of(CharSequence)` will return an >> anonymous, non-synchronized implementation of a `Reader` for each kind of >> `CharSequence` implementation. It is optimized for `String`, >> `StringBuilder`, `StringBuffer` and `CharBuffer`. >> >> In addition, this Pull Request proposes to replace the implementation of >> `StringReader` to become a simple synchronized wrapper around >> `Reader.of(CharSequence)` for the case of `String` sources. To ensure >> correctness, this PR... >> * ...simply moved the **original code** of `StringBuilder` to become the >> de-facto implementation of `Reader.of()`, then stripped synchronized from it >> on the left hand, but kept just a synchronized wrapper on the right hand. >> Then added a `switch` for optimizations within the original code, at the >> exact location where previously just an optimization for `String` lived in. >> * ...added tests for all methods (`Of.java`), and applied that test upon the >> modified `StringBuilder`. >> >> Wherever new JavaDocs were added, existing phrases from other code locations >> have been copied and adapted, to best match the same wording. > > src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/Reader.java line 161: > >> 159: * {@code read(char[])}, {@code read(char[], int, int)}, >> 160: * {@code read(CharBuffer)}, {@code ready()}, {@code skip(long)}, >> and >> 161: * {@code transferTo()} methods all throw {@code IOException}. > > I believe these 2 paragraphs are all redundant besides the initial `The > returned stream is initially open.` sentence: those are duplicating > information already available from `Reader::close` specification. > > Closing `StringReader` is optional but its specification doesn't mention > this. I think we don't need to mention if closing is optional, so that one > sentence is sufficient. This text already exists in this very file, it is a 1:1 copy from `nullReader()`. It cannot be wrong for `of()` if it was correct for `nullReader()`. To stay consistent with existing JavaDocs in this very same file, we should not have different texts for the same cases. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21371#discussion_r1789122833
