On Sun, 27 Nov 2022 17:49:25 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
>>> I think the public visibility of my Twitter account is not wide enough to
>>> get really robust answers, unfortunately.
>>
>> One alternative is to search GitHub. It's amazing how fast they can search
>> such a huge code corpus.
>>
>> E
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 18:22:26 GMT, Jens Lidestrom wrote:
>> I think the public visibility of my Twitter account is not wide enough to
>> get *really robust* answers, unfortunately. So far, 92% answered that they
>> not even used SIS in their whole life. So the users of two-args constructor
>> m
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 17:43:58 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
> I think the public visibility of my Twitter account is not wide enough to get
> really robust answers, unfortunately.
One alternative is to search GitHub. It's amazing how fast they can search such
a huge code corpus.
Example:
https://gi
On Mon, 21 Nov 2022 07:42:35 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> N.B.: Regarding usage numbers, I will do a quick poll on Twitter.
>
>> Indeed my intention solely is to get rid of `Vector`, so I am fine with
>> keeping a low profile and being full backwards compatible. I assume SIS is
>> seldomly used,
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 16:58:56 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
>> Indeed my intention solely is to get rid of `Vector`, so I am fine with
>> keeping a low profile and being full backwards compatible. I assume SIS is
>> seldomly used, so opening a can of warms is not worth it (I think). I am
>> perfectly
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 16:49:16 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
>>> @AlanBateman WDYT?
>>
>> The long standing and undocumented behavior is unfortunate. I don't think
>> the 1-arg constructor is fixable while still allowing for lazy behavior. So
>> I think the only thing we can do is document the existin
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 15:21:31 GMT, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> @AlanBateman WDYT?
>
>> @AlanBateman WDYT?
>
> The long standing and undocumented behavior is unfortunate. I don't think the
> 1-arg constructor is fixable while still allowing for lazy behavior. So I
> think the only thing we can do is
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 13:06:40 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
> @AlanBateman WDYT?
The long standing and undocumented behavior is unfortunate. I don't think the
1-arg constructor is fixable while still allowing for lazy behavior. So I think
the only thing we can do is document the existing behavior tha
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 12:06:55 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
>> The updated code now changes the behaviour in the other direction:
>>
>> In the original code, if `s2` was null a NPE was thrown in `peekNextStream`
>> when `s1` was exhausted.
>>
>> In the current code, `s2` is silently ignored if it is
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 09:47:35 GMT, Jens Lidestrom wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/SequenceInputStream.java line 82:
>>
>>> 80: * @param s2 the second input stream to read.
>>> 81: */
>>> 82: public SequenceInputStream(InputStream s1, InputStream s2) {
>>
>> BTW, w
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 09:14:32 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
>> Markus KARG has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> allowing s2 to be null
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/SequenceInputStream.java line 82:
>
>> 80: * @param
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 09:07:21 GMT, Markus KARG wrote:
>> There is no need to use a temporary Vector within the constructor of
>> SynchronizedInputStream, as more efficient (non-synchronized) alternative
>> code (like List.of) will do the same in possibly less time. While the
>> optimization is
On Sun, 20 Nov 2022 02:16:02 GMT, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
>> Markus KARG has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> allowing s2 to be null
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/io/SequenceInputStream.java line 83:
>
>> 81: */
>> 82
> There is no need to use a temporary Vector within the constructor of
> SynchronizedInputStream, as more efficient (non-synchronized) alternative
> code (like List.of) will do the same in possibly less time. While the
> optimization is not dramatic, it still makes sense to replace Vector unless
14 matches
Mail list logo
