RFR: 6588467: Add isDaemon() and getPriority() to ThreadInfo

[Jeremy Manson]

Staffan, would that be acceptable?

Jeremy

On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:22 AM, Martin Buchholz <martinrb at google.com>
wrote:

> In jsr166 we rarely use @see, regarding it as a vestige of a time when
> @link and @linkplain were not available.  Just work a @linkplain into the
> javadoc. E.g.
>
> +    /**
> +     * Returns the {@linkplain Thread#priority() thread priority} of the thread associated with this
> +     * {@code ThreadInfo}.
> +     *
> +     * @return The priority of the thread associated with this
> +     *         {@code ThreadInfo}.
> +     * @since 1.9
> +     */
> +    public int getPriority() {
>
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 10:34 AM, Jeremy Manson <jeremymanson at google.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Okay.  Thanks for doing this, Staffan.  I do have a "@see
>> Thread#getPriority" there already.  Can I just add "This is an integer
>> between {@linkplain Thread#MIN_PRIORITY} and {@linkplain
>> Thread#MAX_PRIORITY}, inclusive." to the getPriority javadoc?
>>
>> Jeremy
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 4:10 AM, Staffan Larsen <
>> staffan.larsen at oracle.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The CCC request was approved for this change, but there were a couple of
>>> comments:
>>>
>>> 1) "First, syntactically for the javadoc please use "{@code foo}" rather
>>> than "<tt>foo</tt>”.”
>>>
>>> I think you have covered this.
>>>
>>> 2) "You may want to say a bit more about the possible return values of
>>> ThreadInfo.getPriority. For example, are they bound to be within the range
>>> java.lang.Thread.{MIN_PRIORITY, MAX_PRIORITY}?”
>>>
>>> I think this would be good to cover, either by explicitly stating it or
>>> by linking to Thread.getPriorty().
>>>
>>> 3) "Are there any other getFoo or isFoo methods from java.lang.Thread
>>> that should be replicated in ThreadInfo?”
>>>
>>> The only other method that makes sense is getThreadGroup(), but I don’t
>>> think we need to cover this here. JDK-8023908 has been filed a while back
>>> for that.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> /Staffan
>>>
>>> On 18 feb 2015, at 20:10, Jeremy Manson <jeremymanson at google.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Done.
>>>
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmanson/6588467/webrev.02/
>>>
>>> Jeremy
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 1:49 AM, Staffan Larsen <
>>> staffan.larsen at oracle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 18 feb 2015, at 00:58, Jeremy Manson <jeremymanson at google.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Since this is not my code, I will happily defer to the people whose
>>>> code it is on these matters.  I can very easily replace all of the <tt>
>>>> instances, or just the new ones, or none at all.  Just let me know.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I would be grateful if you took the time to convert all of them, but I
>>>> will also understand if you don’t want to.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (My general preference in my own code is to separate feature changes
>>>> and cleanup changes, just so that the history is more comprehensible, but I
>>>> can certainly understand that you might not want to go that way when the
>>>> cost of a checkin is so high.)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Agree that cost of checkin is high…
>>>>
>>>> /Staffan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Jeremy
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>  On 2/17/15 3:10 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think feature changes should be mixed with maintenance.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Code janitor is the most honourable profession, and it would be
>>>>> awesome for a code janitor to convert the entire jdk to {@code but feature
>>>>> contributors should not be asked to do so.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why I didn't ask at first :)
>>>>>
>>>>> I prefer the new javadoc to use {@code...} even though inconsistent
>>>>> with other methods as they were defined since 1.5.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mandy
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 2:35 PM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>  On 2/17/15 9:31 AM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey Mandy,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Thanks for taking a look.  Are we okay making those changes even
>>>>>> though none of the other methods in ThreadInfo follow those conventions?
>>>>>> Not sure whether consistency matters more or less than doing it right.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I wont object and actually be grateful if you want to convert all
>>>>>> <tt>...</tt> to {@code ...}.   Staffan may have a different opinion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mandy
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Jeremy
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:44 PM, Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jeremy,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2/9/2015 4:51 PM, Jeremy Manson wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jmanson/6588467/webrev.01/ <
>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Ejmanson/6588467/webrev.01/>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The change looks okay to me.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nit:  It would be good for the new methods to replace <tt>...</tt>
>>>>>>> with {@code ...}.  line 600, 603 {@code ThreadInfo}.   It would be good to
>>>>>>> add {@linkplain Thread#isDaemon daemon thread} or @see Thread#isDaemon .
>>>>>>> Similarly Thread#getPriority.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>> Mandy
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/serviceability-dev/attachments/20150220/a2f72d82/attachment.html>