[JSR-354] Re: Spec for Public Review: Ballot!
- From: Tony Jewell <tjewell@...>
- To: jcurrency_mail@...
- Subject: [JSR-354] Re: Spec for Public Review: Ballot!
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 11:37:38 +0100
[Apologies for just being a sleeper so far]
Just reading the spec (0.7) - [feel free to ignore my comments if they have
been dealt with previously]
1. In section 3.2.5 you should probably have a footnote that explains
the difficulties of Indian Rupees to give context.
2. In 4.2.2 I would have thought that the exposed getAmount* should all
be unsigned with a signum() call returning the sign of the actual
MonetaryAmount. This would avoid the validation around the signs of the
Whole, Numerator and Denominator amounts.
Logically a MonetaryAmount would always then be:
Signum * ( WholeAmount + ( FractionNumerator / FractionDenominator ) )
3. In 4.2.3 the method signature is syntactically wrong having an extra
4. In 4.2.3 the adjuster example could possibly do with a little tidy
around the names:
MonetaryAmount amount = …
MonetaryAdjuster convertToUSD = ...
MonetaryAmount usdAmount = amount.with(convertToUSD)
5. In 4.3
"like INR" => "like Indian Rupee (INR)" and also reference same footnote
"can be also formatted" => "can also be formatted"
6. In 5:
"Finally there exists some functionalities...." could probably be
rewritten as (if I'm understanding the meaning correctly):
"Finally there is always the possibility that no common ground can be
found for the way some required functionality can be modelled generically
across implementations. It would then be the responsibility of the
implementers to follow best, or at least de-facto, practice."
Not sure if this is correct either.
"may provide according rounding adjusters by passing one of the
following parameters" => "may provide rounding adjusters based on one or
more of the following:"
"The JSR's expert group distincts the following types of precision,
which are important to distinguish." => "The JSR's expert group identified
the following important and distinct precision types:"
"does explicitly not specify" => "does not explicitly specify"
Apologies for being picky on the English and grammar.
I am hoping with being between contracts I can play a more active role in
On Tue, Oct 15, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Anatole Tresch <atsticks@...> wrote:
> Hi everybody in EG
> so it seems that we can go for the Public Review now...?
> Everybody please answer with *Yes,* or* No. If No, tell, what you think
> is still missing or should be improved/changed.*
> *Anatole Tresch*
> Java Lead Engineer, JSR Spec Lead
> Glärnischweg 10
> CH - 8620 Wetzikon
> *Switzerland, Europe Zurich, GMT+1*
> *Twitter: @atsticks*
> *Blogs: **http://javaremarkables.blogspot.ch/*
> *Google: atsticks
> Mobile +41-76 344 62 79*