> On 10 Feb 2016, at 15:53, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > > Thanks for creating the specdiff, but ... it looks reversed; the green > is the old and the red is the new!
D’oh, of course. Updated in-place. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/jsr166-jdk9-integration-CompletableFuture/CompletionStage.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/jsr166-jdk9-integration-CompletableFuture/CompletionStage.html> > Sorry for our "endless fiddling"; we do have future changes in mind, > but no spec changes. No problem. -Chris. > 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.
