There is a policy for managing deprecations: https://openjdk.org/jeps/277
Most the incompatible step, actually removing the declaration in question, if it occurs at all, would only occur after a warning period.
HTH, -Joe On 12/2/2024 6:24 PM, David Alayachew wrote:
As a data point of one, we use all of the abovementioned constants regularly for my day job. In total, we have maybe a couple thousand instances of that constant being referenced. Ripping out wouldn't be too painful as long as I was told exactly what the replacements were, but I wouldn't be thrilled with it.Also, wouldn't this qualify as a backwards-incompatible change? On Mon, Dec 2, 2024, 8:32 PM Joseph D. Darcy <joe.da...@oracle.com> wrote: Hmm. I understand the motivation here and the asymmetry with the integral types, but on the whole I don't think deprecating {Float, Double}.MIN_VALUE and recommending use of a differently-named field with the same value would be a net improvement. -Joe On 12/2/2024 3:17 PM, Éamonn McManus wrote:At Google, we've had several issues over the years relating to Double.MIN_VALUE. People have not unreasonably supposed that Double.MIN_VALUE has the same relationship to Double.MAX_VALUE as Integer.MIN_VALUE has to Integer.MAX_VALUE. So they think that Double.MIN_VALUE is the (finite) negative number of largest magnitude, rather than the positive number of smallest magnitude. We're currently thinking of adding a constant MIN_POSITIVE_VALUE to Guava's Doubles <https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://guava.dev/releases/snapshot-jre/api/docs/com/google/common/primitives/Doubles.html__;!!ACWV5N9M2RV99hQ!PaT7OCGf7CncxF09sKLO4p39KkraAtzbBbvnOR8O8r2x6Z0e1zru8BqG9LGItQtyxAQkQc8A12DanwunC_ZxkNGO$> class and having static analysis that suggests using that instead of Double.MIN_VALUE, if that is indeed what you meant, or of course using -Double.MAX_VALUE if *that* is what you meant. A few JDK and JavaFX bugs show that Google engineers are not the only ones to be confused by this: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-4218647 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8092698 https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8156186 So we also wonder if it would make sense to deprecate Double.MIN_VALUE itself and introduce Double.MIN_POSITIVE_VALUE with the same meaning. Obviously the same thing would apply to Float.
