On Tue, 17 Jun 2025 18:43:56 GMT, Volkan Yazici <vyaz...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> @Michael-Mc-Mahon, instead of making an exception for `max-age` and >>> `expires`, and removing them from `assignors`, can't we convert the type of >>> `assignors` from `Map` to `List` and add `max-age` & `expires` entries at >>> the end? >> >> Just converting from Map to List wouldn't be enough. The problem is that >> both attribute types need to be handled together. You could change the >> attribute name recognition to some kind of pattern match to recognise either >> of them. Then you need to know which of them was set and what their values >> were. >> >> Maybe, I could at least use the assignor pattern to recognise the two >> attributes and limit the special code to just actioning the values. I'll >> take a look at that now. > > I think the last commit (b22113118) just worsened things – now the logic is > spread across `assignMaxAgeAttribute`, `assignors`, and instance variables, > whereas earlier it was only in `assignMaxAgeAttribute`. > :face_with_diagonal_mouth: I suggest simply reverting it, that is, switching > the state back to 9a495d7f9a5e. > > I agree that introducing a smarter data structure and iteration scheme to > `assignors` would simplify things, though that is probably out of the scope > of this work. > > Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks so much for your patient > cooperation. 🙇 > I think the last commit > ([b221131](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/b22113118ce68a5ba710be9072b208e9a36ae533)) > just worsened things – now the logic is spread across > `assignMaxAgeAttribute`, `assignors`, and instance variables, whereas earlier > it was only in `assignMaxAgeAttribute`. 🫤 I suggest simply reverting it, that > is, switching the state back to > [9a495d7](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/commit/9a495d7f9a5e9ae86ce71010950f11ce23ee1c2c). > > I agree that introducing a smarter data structure and iteration scheme to > `assignors` would simplify things, though that is probably out of the scope > of this work. > > Apologies for the inconvenience and thanks so much for your patient > cooperation. 🙇 Yeah, I agree. I will revert it. The old version was clearer. ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25636#discussion_r2154196899
