> On 8 Jul 2016, at 22:10, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 7, 2016 at 3:39 AM, Paul Sandoz <paul.san...@oracle.com > <mailto:paul.san...@oracle.com>> wrote: > > Here is a spec diff for the atomics: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8080603-concurrent-unsafe-vhs/specdiff/java/util/concurrent/atomic/package-summary.html > > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8080603-concurrent-unsafe-vhs/specdiff/java/util/concurrent/atomic/package-summary.html> > > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8080603-concurrent-unsafe-vhs/specdiff/java/util/concurrent/atomic/package-summary.html > > <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~psandoz/jdk9/JDK-8080603-concurrent-unsafe-vhs/specdiff/java/util/concurrent/atomic/package-summary.html>> > > I looked at the specdiff - easier to review than the raw text diff. > The new spec delegates heavily to the VarHandle spec. Let's make that spec > good. > Some of the old content, like the guidance on how to store floats/doubles in > ints/longs in package-info .java, should probably be migrated to VarHandles, > and not just discarded.
Yes, another pass over the VH documentation is needed. Which hopefully can start soon, given code changes are now settling down. I am thinking about placing the signature-polymorphic stuff on MH and VH into a separate html document, that will then give more room to talk about relevant details on the VH class. Paul.
