RFR: 8359919: Minor java.util.concurrent doc improvements

[Doug Lea]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:32:43 GMT, Viktor Klang <vklang at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/Flow.java line 64:
>> 
>>> 62:  * control required in most implementations (for example {@link
>>> 63:  * SubmissionPublisher}), and omits some error processing needed to
>>> 64:  * fully conform to ReactiveStream rules.
>> 
>> I had to re-read the comments on the relevant [issue] from 2018; thanks for fixing it.
>> 
>> Nit: ReactiveStream. Earlier in that doc comment, it is referred to as "reactive-streams". We should choose one of those.
>> 
>> We can say reactive-streams or Reactive Streams. The latter seems to be the term of choice at https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/.
>> 
>> @viktorklang-ora, thoughts?
>> 
>> [issue]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8210149
>
> @pavelrappo Indeed, "Reactive Streams" would be better. Perhaps something like this:
> 
> Suggestion:
> 
>  * fully conform to the Reactive Streams specification.

Thanks; done.

>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 143:
>> 
>>> 141:  * that take too long. The scheduled functions or actions may create
>>> 142:  * and invoke other {@linkplain ForkJoinTask ForkJoinTasks}. Delayed
>>> 143:  * actions become <em>enabled</em> for execution and behave as ordinary submitted
>> 
>> Does it make sense to retain `<em>`?
>
> Might make sense to remove it if we always spell it out at "enabled for execution"

OK; done

-------------

PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25880#discussion_r2156715166
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25880#discussion_r2156721548