RFR: jsr166 jdk9 integration wave 4

[Martin Buchholz]

Thanks for creating the specdiff, but ... it looks reversed; the green
is the old and the red is the new!

Sorry for our "endless fiddling"; we do have future changes in mind,
but no spec changes.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com> wrote:
> On 02/02/16 15:23, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hegarty at oracle.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 18:45, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> After much debate on what to do when CompleteableFuture.whenComplete
>>>> encounters an exception in both the source and the action, we chose
>>>> what was acceptable to the most people - add the action's exception to
>>>> the source exception as a suppressed exception.  And added usage
>>>> guidelines.  And gave handle "top billing" over whenComplete.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/jsr166-jdk9-integration/
>>>
>>>
>>> This all looks fine to me.
>>>
>>> So I assume you only need a small CCC request for CompletionStage, right?
>>> Everything else is implementation.
>>
>>
>> If you squint you might argue that CompletionStage's contract hasn't
>> actually changed,
>> but yeah, go ahead and do a CCC for CompletionStage.  Publishing a
>> specdiff would be nice - method reordering (for "top billing") has
>> made the diffs harder to review.  Thanks.
>
>
> Here are the specdiffs that will be used for the CCC, unless there are
> any last minute changes.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/jsr166-jdk9-integration-CompletableFuture/CompletionStage.html
>
> -Chris.