RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 14

Martin Buchholz martinrb at google.com
Wed Feb 1 16:44:55 UTC 2017

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.sandoz at oracle.com> wrote:

> I think that would be too pedantic as well. At this late stage in 9 i
> prefer to leave things as they are and not fiddle. Revise for 10?

We could, but jsr166 primitive version control technology doesn't have a
mechanism to maintain such distinctions.

I still think the jdk9 docs are misleading and we should do something to
fix them.  The high-level bit for users is "Bulk operations are
non-atomic"!  Maybe we should include that sentence?!

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list