Code review request for JDK-8014365 Restore Objects.requireNonNull(T, Supplier<String>)

[Mike Duigou]

Looks fine.

Mike

On May 15 2013, at 09:44 , Joe Darcy wrote:

> On 05/14/2013 06:32 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 10/05/2013 22:01, Joe Darcy wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> 
>>> Please (re)review this change to introduce Objects.requireNonNull(T, Supplier<String>):
>>> 
>>>    http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8014365.0/
>>> 
>>> The original change had to be pulled out because of a build issue (8012343: Objects.requireNonNull(Object,Supplier) breaks genstubs build); I'll be asking for a review on build-dev of the build-related change in langtools. The test portion of the patch is slightly different than before because of the intervening changes made for
>>> 
>>>    8013712: Add Objects.nonNull and Objects.isNull
>> I realize this has already been pushed but just to point out a missing parenthesis on line 272 in the javadoc, needs to be ")}".
>> 
> 
> Sorry for introduce the javadoc issue.
> 
> Please review this patch
> 
> --- a/src/share/classes/java/util/Objects.java    Mon May 13 22:16:55 2013 -0700
> +++ b/src/share/classes/java/util/Objects.java    Wed May 15 09:43:16 2013 -0700
> @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@
>      * Checks that the specified object reference is not {@code null} and
>      * throws a customized {@link NullPointerException} if it is.
>      *
> -     * <p>Unlike the method {@link requireNonNull(Object, String},
> +     * <p>Unlike the method {@link #requireNonNull(Object, String)},
>      * this method allows creation of the message to be deferred until
>      * after the null check is made. While this may confer a
>      * performance advantage in the non-null case, when deciding to
> 
> and I'll file a bug a push the fix.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Joe