RFR JDK-8066678: java.nio.channels.Channels cleanup

[Pavel Rappo]

Chirs, Alan, done in place.

The thing I'm still thinking about is this:

        if (in instanceof FileInputStream &&
            FileInputStream.class.equals(in.getClass())) {
            return ((FileInputStream)in).getChannel();
        }

Were there any particular reasons for 'in' to be *exactly* an instance
of FileInputStream? As you've seen I changed it safely to:

	if (in.getClass() == FileInputStream.class) {
	    return ((FileInputStream) in).getChannel();
	}

But can we simply go a little bit further and change it to just:

	if (in instanceof FileInputStream) {
	    return ((FileInputStream) in).getChannel();
	}
?

Does anybody recall why it was that way in the first place?

-Pavel

> On 4 Dec 2014, at 14:01, Alan Bateman <Alan.Bateman at oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> On 04/12/2014 12:23, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Hi everyone,
>> 
>> Could you please review my change for JDK-8066678?
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~prappo/8066678/webrev.00/
>> 
>> It's a minor cleanup. Main things fixed:
>> 
>> 	* Substituted Channels.checkNotNull for Objects.Objects.requireNonNull
>>           (non-essential difference is the NPE message)
>> 	* Javadoc fixes
>> 
> The change to use Objects.requireNonNull looks okay. Also removing the "open" flag from WritableByteChannelImpl is okay.
> 
> I don't agree with the javadoc changes, it makes this class inconsistent with the other classes in this area. The changes to use {@code ... } are good.
> 
> -Alan