On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:58:30 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 two additional 
> commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Fixed wording as proposed by Alan Bateman: 'The returned reader supports 
> the mark and reset ... could move up to become the second paragraph.'
>  - Fixed wording as proposed by Alan Bateman: 'make The reader is initially 
> .. the second sentence of the first paragraph rather than a new paragraph.'

I have drafted a release note for 
[JDK-8341566](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8341566) in 
[JDK-8344910](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8344910). Kindly asking for 
reviews! :-)

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21371#issuecomment-2495508992

Reply via email to