Hi Nishit,
On 11/18/18 10:29 PM, Nishit Jain wrote:
Hi Naoto,
Please check my comments inline.
On 17-11-2018 04:52, naoto.s...@oracle.com wrote:
Hi Nishit,
Here are my comments:
- CLDRConverter: As the compact pattern no more employs List<String>,
can we eliminate stringListEntry/Element, and use Array equivalent
instead?
Since the CNF design does not put any limit on the size of compact
pattern, so at the time of parsing the CLDR xmls using SAX parser, it
becomes difficult to identify the size of array when the parent element
of compact pattern is encountered, so I think it is better to keep the
List<String> while extracting the resources.
OK. However I'd not keep the List<String> format on generating the
resource bundle, as there is no reason to introduce yet another bundle
format other than the existing array of String.
- CompactNumberFormat.java
Multiple locations: Use StringBuilder instead of StringBuffer.
OK
line 268: The link points to NumberFormat.getNumberInstance(Locale)
instead of DecimalFormat
OK. Changed it at line 165 also.
line 855: no need to do toString(). length() can detect whether it's
empty or not.
line 884: "Overloaded method" reads odd here. I'd prefer specializing
in the "given number" into either long or biginteger.
OK
line 1500: subparseNumber() pretty much shares the same code with
DecimalFormat.subparse(). can they be merged?
The existing CNF.subParseNumber differs in the way parseIntegerOnly is
handled, DecimalFormat.parse()/subparse() behaviour is unpredictable
with parseIntegeronly = true when multipliers are involved (Please see
JDK-8199223).
Also, I had thought that the CNF.parse()/subparseNumber() should *not
*parse the exponential notation e.g. while parsing "1.05E4K" the parsing
should break at 'E' and returns 1.05, because 'E' should be considered
as unparseable character for general number format pattern or compact
number pattern, but this is not the case with DecimalFormat.parse(). The
below DecimalFormat general number format instance
NumberFormat nf = NumberFormat.getNumberInstance();
nf.parse("1.05E4")
Successfully parse the string and returns 10500. The same behaviour is
there with other DecimalFormat instances also e.g. currency instance.
Do you think this is an issue with DecimalFormat.parse() and CNF should
avoid parsing exponential numbers? Or, should CNF.parse() be modified to
be consistent with DecimalFormat.parse() in this aspect?
No, I understand there are differences. But I see a lot of duplicated
piece of code which I would like to eliminate.
line 1913-1923, 1950-1960, 1987-1997, 2024-2034: It simply calls
super. No need to override them.
Since setters are overridden, I think that it is better to override
getters also (even if they are just calling super and have same javadoc)
to keep them at same level. But, if you see no point in keeping them in
CNF, I will remove them. Does that need CSR change?
I don't see any point for override. I don't think there needs a CSR, but
better ask Joe about it.
line 2231: You need to test the type before cast. Otherwise
ClassCastException may be thrown.
The type is checked in the superclass equals method getClass() !=
obj.getClass(), so I think there is no need to check the type here.
OK.
Naoto
Regards,
Nishit Jain
Naoto
On 11/16/18 9:54 AM, Nishit Jain wrote:
Hi,
Please review this non trivial feature addition to NumberFormat API.
The existing NumberFormat API provides locale based support for
formatting and parsing numbers which includes formatting decimal,
percent, currency etc, but the support for formatting a number into a
human readable or compact form is missing. This RFE adds that feature
to format a decimal number in a compact format (e.g. 1000 -> 1K,
1000000 -> 1M in en_US locale) , which is useful for the environment
where display space is limited, so that the formatted string can be
displayed in that limited space. It is defined by LDML's
specification for Compact Number Formats.
http://unicode.org/reports/tr35/tr35-numbers.html#Compact_Number_Formats
RFE: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8177552
Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~nishjain/8177552/webrevs/webrev.00/
CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8188147
Request to please help review the the change.
Regards,
Nishit Jain
