RFR: 8238761: Asynchronous handshakes [v4]

[Robbin Ehn]

On Tue, 22 Sep 2020 12:20:36 GMT, Coleen Phillimore <coleenp at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The order of members matter since C++ initialize them in declared order.
>> My opinion when changing this was that it was easier to read when passing the only argument to the first member being
>> initialized, thus _handshakee must be first member.
>> But I should init _active_handshaker in constructor, so added that and lined-up.
>> 
>> So before I do any such change please reflect over how the constructor will look like.
>
> I don't understand, you'd have to rearrange the initializers in the constructor too, but I don't see any order
> dependance.  Moving over _lock  helps, so this is fine.

You want a cosmetic change in the member declaration.
I'm saying the constructor will look worse.

Im asking if you want to trade a worse constructor for that?
(all here is extremely subjective :) )

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

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/151