Jeanne Boyarsky

author & internet detective
+ Follow
since May 26, 2003
Jeanne likes ...
Eclipse IDE VI Editor Java
Forum Moderator
New York
Cows and Likes
Cows
Total received
848
In last 30 days
0
Total given
99983
Likes
Total received
4656
Received in last 30 days
3
Total given
3382
Given in last 30 days
7
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Rancher Scavenger Hunt Green check
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt Green check
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt Green check

Recent posts by Jeanne Boyarsky

Good news. I was able to get this fixed in the Java 17 book. (We are done with that chapter but not the entire book so it wasn't too late).

Have a cow for getting an error fixed in an upcoming book.
Confirmed and added to the errata. We've already finished this chapter in the Java 17 book, but I'm checking if we can get it fixed there too.
Remember that you don't need to know anything about the stored procedure syntax.  But at least one database does use this syntax so it is valid.
I think you are right. I'm going to take a few days to process my mental model of modules and then reply.

shabloel shanti wrote:page 1: OCP exam objectives -> handling date, time etc is printed but belongs to chapter 2.


The full objective name here is "Handling date, time, text, numeric and boolean values"
This object is covered in multiple chapters. Chapter 1 covers primitives and wrappers. Chapter 2 covers them more. Chapter 4 covers dates. Etc. A number of objectives are covered in multiple chapters. We explain the material in a way to assist learning and retention. By contrast, our practice test book has a one to one mapping between objectives and chapters.

shabloel shanti wrote:page 62: p.age = 1400L; in stead of p.age = 1400, as age is a "long". It will compile though.


This isn't wrong. The "L" is optional. It's very common to omit it.
You are correct. I've added this to the errata. I also traced it back. We wrote this correctly (in that it didn't have the dash and was therefore wrong.) The dash got added in editing .
Another cow for being the first to tell me about a typo in the errata that I made in 2016
While the output would be nicer with the println, it's not wrong per se. I did check our later books and we rewrote this example in the Java 11 one.
"Properly" is right. We are using Serializable as a verb. You can think of it as a shorthand for "implementing a Serializable interface properly"
Fixed. Have a cow for pointing out something that nobody has noticed/brought to my attention since I logged that errata in 2016!
Yech. In addition to being confusing, it is wrong. forEach() and merge() have that problem in the Java 17 book too. (table 9.6 there). I've added this to the errata of the Java 11 and 17 books and credited you
K&B didn't write a Java 11 cert book and there's nothing listed on Amazon for a Java 17 cert book. So I don't think they are. They did recently publish an updated Head First Java that covers Java 17. It's not a cert book, but it is a great read!

Paul Anilprem wrote: Merely reproducing the same question is not helpful to anyone.


And would also violate Oracle's policy that all exam takers agree to!
No. Annotations were on the Java 11 exam and then removed for Java 17. As was security.

Assertions were on the Java 8 and 11 exams and removed for Java 17.
Static interfaces haven't been presented on page 267. They are introduced about 10 pages later. So that rule is correct given what the reader has exposed to at that point in the book.