[JSR-354] Re: Spec for Public Review: Ballot!
- From: Werner Keil <werner.keil@...>
- To: "jcurrency_mail@..." <jcurrency_mail@...>
- Subject: [JSR-354] Re: Spec for Public Review: Ballot!
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2013 12:53:55 +0200
Thanks for the details, that is much appreciated. Since you are a member of
the full EG, unless it already happened, Anatole should be able to grant
you edit rights to the document, too.
I spent a long time with English speaking teams and lived with native
speakers, but even I am not a native speaker myself, and especially in
large teams with people from all countries documents are not always
proof-read even in large organisations[?]
Given the 30 day minimum review period before the (next) EC will find it on
the ballot, it makes almost no difference, if the PD would start this or
next week. Unless there are more updates and spell-checks necessary, I
would see no problem filing it early next week, but it would make little
difference if it was filed a week later.
On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 12:37 PM, Tony Jewell <tjewell@...> wrote:
> [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 "T".
> 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 as above.
> "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.
> 7. 5.1
> "may provide according rounding adjusters by passing one of the
> following parameters" => "may provide rounding adjusters based on one or
> more of the following:"
> 8. 5.3
> "The JSR's expert group distincts the following types of precision,
> which are important to distinguish." => "The JSR's expert group
> the following important and distinct precision types:"
> 9. 184.108.40.206
> "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
> this project.
> Tony J
> 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*
Description: GIF image