On Thu, 19 Jun 2025 09:32:43 GMT, Viktor Klang <vkl...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/Flow.java line 64:
>>
>>> 62: * control required in most implementations (for example {@link
>>> 63: * SubmissionPublisher}), and omits some error processing needed to
>>> 64: * fully conform to ReactiveStream rules.
>>
>> I had to re-read the comments on the relevant [issue] from 2018; thanks for
>> fixing it.
>>
>> Nit: ReactiveStream. Earlier in that doc comment, it is referred to as
>> "reactive-streams". We should choose one of those.
>>
>> We can say reactive-streams or Reactive Streams. The latter seems to be the
>> term of choice at https://github.com/reactive-streams/reactive-streams-jvm/.
>>
>> @viktorklang-ora, thoughts?
>>
>> [issue]: https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8210149
>
> @pavelrappo Indeed, "Reactive Streams" would be better. Perhaps something
> like this:
>
> Suggestion:
>
> * fully conform to the Reactive Streams specification.
Thanks; done.
>> src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 143:
>>
>>> 141: * that take too long. The scheduled functions or actions may create
>>> 142: * and invoke other {@linkplain ForkJoinTask ForkJoinTasks}. Delayed
>>> 143: * actions become <em>enabled</em> for execution and behave as
>>> ordinary submitted
>>
>> Does it make sense to retain `<em>`?
>
> Might make sense to remove it if we always spell it out at "enabled for
> execution"
OK; done
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25880#discussion_r2156715166
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25880#discussion_r2156721548
