Hi Sherman,
Thanks for the detailed review, the webrev has been updated with your
recommendation.
Roger
On 10/2/2013 1:50 PM, Xueming Shen wrote:
On 10/02/2013 10:20 AM, roger riggs wrote:
Hi Sherman,
The BASE_DATE is the default ChronoLocalDate and is used outside of RPP.
RPP itself uses
On 10/02/2013 10:20 AM, roger riggs wrote:
Hi Sherman,
The BASE_DATE is the default ChronoLocalDate and is used outside of RPP.
RPP itself uses any ChronoLocalDate, not the specific one.
Scoping BASE_DATE to RPP would not delay the initialization
since it would need to be initialized at line 171
Hi Sherman,
The BASE_DATE is the default ChronoLocalDate and is used outside of RPP.
RPP itself uses any ChronoLocalDate, not the specific one.
Scoping BASE_DATE to RPP would not delay the initialization
since it would need to be initialized at line 1715.
Roger
On 10/2/2013 12:54 PM, Xueming
Should move the static field BASE_DATE into ReducePrinterParser?
Logically (and for performance, if it matters at all) RPP appears to
be a better place for this constant.
The rest looks fine.
-Sherman
On 10/02/2013 08:19 AM, roger riggs wrote:
Please review this fix for parsing two digit years
My patch still looks fine to me :-)
Stephen
On 2 October 2013 16:19, roger riggs wrote:
> Please review this fix for parsing two digit years in an Chronology.
>
> The webrev includes Stephen's proposed alternate method that provides
> a ChronoLocalDate as the base date.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java
Please review this fix for parsing two digit years in an Chronology.
The webrev includes Stephen's proposed alternate method that provides
a ChronoLocalDate as the base date.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-two-digit-8024076/
Thanks, Roger
p.s. the design issue raised in the comments
I suggest taking the patch as is and raising a new lower priority bug
for the effective chrono aspect.
Stephen
On 1 October 2013 19:51, roger riggs wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> The proposed approach makes sense to me, shall I take the patch as is or
> wait to integrate until for the mentioned update
Hi Stephen,
The proposed approach makes sense to me, shall I take the patch as is or
wait to integrate until for the mentioned update of effective chrono?
Thanks, Roger
On 9/22/2013 10:27 AM, Stephen Colebourne wrote:
The patch only changes the text of one of the two appendValueReduced
methods
The patch only changes the text of one of the two appendValueReduced
methods. The patch does not handle week based years or provide for
users to add their own year fields. It also does not handle
formatting.
After much thinking, I think the right solution is to add a new
appendValueReduced method
Hi,
The java.time reduced value parser does work as expected (issue 8024076)
for chronologies other than ISO.
The base value is assumed to be chronology independent but is not
converted to the requested Chronology before it is used.
Please review:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-t
10 matches
Mail list logo
