RFR(s) #2: 6344935: (spec) clarify specifications for Object.wait overloads
david.holmes at oracle.com
Mon Aug 21 01:32:41 UTC 2017
You're a brave man :) I shall refrain from mentioning any of the
existing wording quirks that really irritate me. :)
On 19/08/2017 5:59 AM, Stuart Marks wrote:
> Hi all,
> Well nothing is ever simple, is it? Prompted by David Holmes' comments,
> I looked at the other overloads of wait(), and I agree that they're in
> need of cleanup. I decided to put the most complete version of the
> specification into the wait(timeout, nanos) overload, and then I simply
> redefined the other overloads wait(timeout) and wait() in terms of the
> first. This avoids redundancies that creep in when what ought to be the
> same specification is replicated across different overloads (which is
> probably how the specs for these methods diverged in the first place).
> I've incorporated comments from Martin Buchholz and Hans Boehm. I've
> done a little bit of rewriting where I thought it was necessary,
> particularly in the lead sentences of the specs. Plus I added a few
> editorial cleanups.
> Since this has gotten bigger, here's a webrev:
Overall looks good. Only nit I have is that for the:
* @throws InterruptedException if any thread interrupted the current
thread before or
* while the current thread was waiting
I prefer to see the:
"The <i>interrupted status</i> of the current thread is cleared when
this exception is thrown."
remain on the @throws. I just think people are more likely to look at
the @throws than read all the main javadoc.
> Please review. Thanks.
More information about the core-libs-dev