RFR 7118066: Warnings in java.util.concurrent package

David Holmes david.holmes at oracle.com
Wed Dec 7 06:04:48 UTC 2011

Thanks Doug and Chris.

They were just nits so it is fine to proceed - thanks for changing the 
annotations though.


On 7/12/2011 11:33 AM, Doug Lea wrote:
> Thanks for all the comments. We changed to having the
> annotations on their own lines (even though it furthers
> the Java tendency of gratuitously occupying too much vertical
> space :-). Thanks to Chris for explaining why we didn't
> incorporate some of the other suggestions.
> Also ...
>>> - you added:
>>> * @param s the stream
>>> for readObject, but not for writeObject. Seems unnecessary for either.
>> Right, this is obviously not public API and does seem unnecessary.
>> This is just
>> a minor style/comment nit to be consistent with other j.u.c. classes.
>> But now I
>> see there are a few other readObject methods that are not consistent
>> too ( as
>> well as some writeObjects ). If it's ok we can catch these at another
>> time?
> Yes, one of these days we should uniformly just remove them all.
> -Doug

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list