> On 8 Dec 2015, at 8:19 p.m., Mandy Chung <mandy.ch...@oracle.com> wrote: > > >> On Dec 8, 2015, at 6:50 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: >> >> >>> On 8 Dec 2015, at 14:33, Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote: >>> Adding an argument to the most flexible constructor of Thread bulks up >>> an already heavy weight constructor. Look at the cases being replaced, >>> none of them use all of the arguments. The stackSize, for example, is >>> rarely >>> used and is nearly useless due to its implementation dependencies. >> >> Right. The motivation for adding an additional constructor that accepts a >> superset of arguments is for maximum flexibility. Since this is targeted at >> the advanced user, then it should be ok, but I agree it looks a little >> unwieldy. >> >>> Would you consider using a static Factory method (aptly named) instead >>> of a constructor? >> >> Possibly, I went down the constructor route for consistency with what is >> already there. The usage pattern of extending Thread is also very common. > > > Since this is target for advanced users, what’s your thought of defining a > new subclass extending Thread?
I don't have a strong objection against a new subclass, but I seems like overkill for something so simple, given there is already low-level / advanced details exposed in the current API, like stack size. Unless you are thinking of creating a new home for other Thread and thread-local related operations, that could be added subsequently? -Chris.
