RFR(s) #2: 6344935: (spec) clarify specifications for Object.wait overloads

[Hans Boehm]

Agreed. Thanks!

Nit: It looked to me like one of the closing brackets in the apiNote was
misindented.

On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 1:44 PM, Remi Forax <forax at univ-mlv.fr> wrote:

> looks good.
> It's better than the previous wording.
>
> cheers,
> Rémi
>
> ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "Stuart Marks" <stuart.marks at oracle.com>
> > À: "core-libs-dev" <core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net>
> > Envoyé: Vendredi 18 Août 2017 21:59:25
> > Objet: RFR(s) #2: 6344935: (spec) clarify specifications for Object.wait
> overloads
>
> > 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:
> >
> > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/reviews/6344935/webrev.1/
> >
> > Please review. Thanks.
> >
> > s'marks
>