commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niall Pemberton <>
Subject Re: [LANG] 2.5 Random (mis)behaviour
Date Mon, 08 Feb 2010 16:39:11 GMT
On Fri, Feb 5, 2010 at 3:15 PM, sebb <> wrote:
> I'm hopefully near to finding a version of nextLong(long) that
> distributes the numbers better.
> There's no such functionality in Random (even in Java 6) so that might
> even be a useful addition for Lang3.
> But there are some other aspects of RandomUtils and JVMRandom classes
> that seem plain wrong in the current 2.4 release:
> RandomUtils.nextInt() returns a number in the range [0,Integer.MAX_VALUE)
> however
> RandomUtils.nextInt(Random) returns a number in the range
> [Integer.MIN_VALUE,Integer.MAX_VALUE]
> (unless Random is JVMRandom of course)
> Similarly for nextLong().
> This is not documented for 2.4 and seems like an accident of the
> original implementation, rather than a conscious design decision. I've
> added some Javadoc to trunk to document the current behaviour, but I
> am now wondering whether it would be OK to fix the behaviour so it
> agrees with the 2.4 Javadoc?

I would say fix the javadoc rather than change the behaviour

> Also, given that JVMRandom now relies on a static copy of Random, it
> would be trivial to implement some of the missing functionality, such
> as:
>    public static void nextBytes(byte[]);
>    public static synchronized double nextGaussian();
> with corresponding changes to the instance methods in JVMRandom.
> Should this be done, or is it better to leave the methods unimplemented?

I think we should only be adding new features that are also going into
the trunk. Since RandomUtils & JVMRandom have been deleted from trunk
then I don't think we should do this.


To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message