On Sat, Dec 14, 2024 at 1:56 PM Piotr P. Karwasz <pi...@mailing.copernik.eu> wrote: > > Hi Gary, > > On 14.12.2024 17:45, Gary Gregory wrote: > > What passes the criteria of "simple cases"? > > I would classify all sequences of `new StringBuilder()`, `append` and > `toString` without any branching or loops as simple cases.
Sounds reasonable. Maybe "no control flow" is "simple". > > > Should this be enforced or can it be enforced? With Checkstyle? Somethings > > else? > > This can be enforced by running the OpenRewrite rule I mentioned > before[1] on a regular basis and check that nothing was actually rewritten. > > The only problem with applying OpenRewrite rule is that they can break > the formatting of the source code. Do we have an automated way to > reformat the source code to conform to the CheckStyle rules? We do not. I use Eclipse, and some components have an Eclipse-formatted XML config file. This is not great and not as good as something like Spotless, which is used nowhere in Commons. It could be introduced in commons-parent. Gary > > [1] > https://docs.openrewrite.org/recipes/staticanalysis/replacestringbuilderwithstring > > > Considering: > > - that we support Java 8 and up to the current version. > > - that we don't say which Java vendor we support. > > - that the JLS (which version...) only suggests that a vendor could > > implement string concatenation using one of the Java stock classes. > > > > Is there a risk that changing to not using our unsynchronized class have > > performance side-effects? > > There is no bytecode equivalent to string concatenation, so it is up to > the compiler to translate string concatenations in methods calls. If you > compile for Java 8 you'll end up using `StringBuilder`. If you compile > for Java 9 or higher, you'll end up with a specialized lambda. > > Piotr --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
