RFR: 8058550: Clarify that TimerTasks are not reusable
Ulf.Zibis at CoSoCo.de
Thu Sep 18 19:29:23 UTC 2014
Am 18.09.2014 um 20:54 schrieb Alan Bateman:
> On 18/09/2014 18:52, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Hi Chris,
>> I'd like you to do a code review.
> This looks okay. If I were wording this then I think I might word in the singular, as in "Once a
> timer task has been scheduled ... then subsequent attempts to schedule it ...".
Sounds reasonable. On the other hand, plural indirectly underlines the usual need of multiple timer
task instances. I let it up to you. in other respects the wording looks okay to me.
I still like to see the extended explanation for the IllegalStateExeption at Timer.schedule(...),
even if technically redundant, as one might miss the note at TimerTask.
More information about the core-libs-dev