Just a nit more, Roger:
131 * <p>
132 * The cleaner terminates when it is unreachable and all of the
133 * registered cleaning functions are complete.
(and also in the javadoc of the other create() method)
The cleaner is an object. What terminates is a thread. So what about:
"The thread terminates after the cleaner becomes unreachable and all of
the registered cleaning functions have completed."
Would writing something like the following make sense: "A future
implementation may use more than one thread. The ThreadFactory should
not assume that only one thread will be requested." ?
Regards, Peter
On 12/04/2015 05:55 PM, Roger Riggs wrote:
Hi,
Thanks for the review and comments.
The webrev[1] and javadoc[2] are updated in place.
Roger
[1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-cleaner-8138696/
[2] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/cleaner-doc/index.html
On 12/3/2015 4:50 PM, mark.reinh...@oracle.com wrote:
Looks good -- thanks for the further simplification.
Minor editorial comments, to add what Kim and Chris noted:
- In many places you write, e.g., "Cleaner" rather than "{@code
Cleaner}". For consistency with the rest of the package it'd be
better in most cases just to write "cleaner" or, if its nature as
a class is important, write "{@code Cleaner}". The same goes for
Cleanable, Thread, ThreadFactory, and all other types.
- The specification of Cleaner::create() mentions
"ThreadContextClassLoader", but that's not actually a type anywhere
in the JDK. Suggest "{@linkplain
java.lang.Thread#getContextClassLoader context class loader}.
- In the same method, it'd be helpful to provide links into the
Thread
class (or wherever) for the concepts of access-control context and
thread locals.
- Mark
