On Wed, 9 Oct 2024 05:50:18 GMT, Markus KARG <d...@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.
>
> Markus KARG has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Improved wording: 'If the sequence changes while the reader is open, e.g. 
> the length changes, the behavior is undefined.'

test/jdk/java/io/Reader/Of.java line 40:

> 38:  * @bug 8341566
> 39:  * @run testng Of
> 40:  * @summary Check for expected behavior of Reader.of().

Nit - the jtreg documentation recommends the following order of these tags 
https://openjdk.org/jtreg/tag-spec.html#ORDER. For newly introduced tests, like 
this one, it will be good to follow that recommendation.

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21371#discussion_r1792999932

Reply via email to