> On Dec 14, 2015, at 2:38 PM, Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> The complexity of using Lambda for cleaning functions are too hard to explain
> in depth
> in the context of an example. A more conservative approach is to show using
> a static nested class. A lambda savvy developer can correctly determine how
> to avoid the pitfalls, and other should stick to the static nested class.
>
> [1]http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/webrev-cleaner-8138696/
> [2]http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~rriggs/cleaner-doc/index.html
Looks okay in general. When we convert existing use of finalizers in the JDK
to Cleaner, that would give good feedback to this API. As the api note, it
would be better if the CleaningExample shows the real cleaning work. It’s okay
with me if you want to file a JBS issue and do that later if you want to build
up some examples when converting existing use to Cleaner.
Editorial comments.
186 * @exception IllegalThreadStateException if the thread from the
thread
187 * factory was {@link Thread.State#NEW not a new thread}.
s/@exception/@throws/
s/ {@link Thread.State#NEW not a new thread}/not a {@link Thread.State#NEW new
thread}/
205 * @param thunk a {@code Runnable} to invoke when the object becomes
phantom reachable
The spec refers this as a cleaning function and this is the only outliner and
refer it as “thunk”.
s/thunk/action - David suggested “action”. "function” vs “action” - It’s quite
minor. I do think David has a good point that java.util.function.Function
produces a result [1]. No new webrev is needed.
Mandy
[1]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-December/037364.html
