Thanks for creating the specdiff, but ... it looks reversed; the green is the old and the red is the new!
Sorry for our "endless fiddling"; we do have future changes in mind, but no spec changes. On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 2:50 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: > On 02/02/16 15:23, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >> On Tue, Feb 2, 2016 at 6:37 AM, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 1 Feb 2016, at 18:45, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: >>> >>>> After much debate on what to do when CompleteableFuture.whenComplete >>>> encounters an exception in both the source and the action, we chose >>>> what was acceptable to the most people - add the action's exception to >>>> the source exception as a suppressed exception. And added usage >>>> guidelines. And gave handle "top billing" over whenComplete. >>>> >>>> >>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~martin/webrevs/openjdk9/jsr166-jdk9-integration/ >>> >>> >>> This all looks fine to me. >>> >>> So I assume you only need a small CCC request for CompletionStage, right? >>> Everything else is implementation. >> >> >> If you squint you might argue that CompletionStage's contract hasn't >> actually changed, >> but yeah, go ahead and do a CCC for CompletionStage. Publishing a >> specdiff would be nice - method reordering (for "top billing") has >> made the diffs harder to review. Thanks. > > > Here are the specdiffs that will be used for the CCC, unless there are > any last minute changes. > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/jsr166-jdk9-integration-CompletableFuture/CompletionStage.html > > -Chris.
