> On Nov 10, 2016, at 2:28 PM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 11/10/2016 05:59 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> >> On 10/11/2016 17:42, David M. Lloyd wrote: >>> My original suggestion for the method was to make it static, and possibly >>> even caller-sensitive, for just this reason. >> Changing it to be non-final looks reasonable here, the main reason being >> that it's a no-arg isXXXX method and so unlikely that there are custom class >> loaders that have a method with this name that returns something other than >> boolean. However the modifier might be a concern and so time will tell if >> there are custom class loaders that defining a non-public no-arg method with >> this name. >> >> -Alan > > It would be nice for this method to be final.
That’d be the ideal case. > This way it could be relied on to return the "correct" answer regardless of > the implementation subclass. Who knows, maybe some internal logic might need > this method in the future and at that time another package-protected method > would have to be added and exposed via SharedSecrets or similar. If > "isParallelCapable" is already taken, then what about choosing another name? This is alternative but it’s hard to predict the probability of a name clash with existing subclass implementation. > Since there is already a @CallerSensitive protected static method called > "registerAsParallelCapable" for subclasses to call from their <clinit> > blocks, the query could be called: > > isRegisteredAsParallelCapable() ? > > I doubt this name is already taken by any subclass out there… isRegisteredAsParallelCapable may be okay. Mandy
