Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and how
it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
@DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whether this is in line with your
thoughts on the matter.
Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and how
it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
@DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whether this is in line with your
thoughts on the matter.
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 09:05:49 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whethe
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:36:48 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whethe
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:36:48 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whethe
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:36:48 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whethe
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 18:53:35 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
>> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>>
>> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in o
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:36:48 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whethe
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 15:36:48 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whethe
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:20:27 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Here's my attempt:
>
> ```
> * An unbounded {@linkplain BlockingQueue blocking queue} of {@link Delayed}
> * elements, in which an element generally becomes eligible for removal when
> its
> * delay has expired.
> *
> * An element
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:20:27 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
>> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>>
>> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in o
On Thu, 23 Feb 2023 21:20:27 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
>> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>>
>> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in o
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:09:12 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>> Here's my attempt:
>>
>>
>> * An unbounded {@linkplain BlockingQueue blocking queue} of {@link Delayed}
>> * elements, in which an element generally becomes eligible for removal when
>> its
>> * delay has expired.
>> *
>> * An el
On Mon, 27 Feb 2023 20:09:12 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> I wonder if there's now a way to override javadoc for remove() without
> creating a new method body.
I thought recent javadoc features might have been useful here, but I scanned
the results from this jql:
subcomponent in ( "javadoc(t
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 02:03:51 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>> @Martin-Buchholz Martin, how would you like to proceed with your proposed
>>> wording, would you prefer a suggested edit to this PR, do a separate PR, or
>>> otherwise? /cc @AlanBateman (any recommendation, Alan? thinking )
>>
>> Talk
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 02:03:51 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>> @Martin-Buchholz Martin, how would you like to proceed with your proposed
>>> wording, would you prefer a suggested edit to this PR, do a separate PR, or
>>> otherwise? /cc @AlanBateman (any recommendation, Alan? thinking )
>>
>> Talk
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 15:59:33 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
> Right. But remove(Object) unlike remove() doesn't consider the expiration
> time. Confusing!
Actually, confusion extends to **three** methods with the same name:
- `Queue.remove()`
- `Collection.remove(Object)`
- `Iterator.remove()`
---
On Tue, 7 Mar 2023 03:53:59 GMT, Martin Buchholz wrote:
>>> @Martin-Buchholz @pavelrappo OTOH I see that DelayQueue _has already_
>>> overridden `remove(Object o)` so you should be able to modify that?
>>
>> Right. But remove(Object) unlike remove() doesn't consider the expiration
>> time. C
> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>
> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on whether this is in line with your
> thoughts on the matter.
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:08:57 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
>> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>>
>> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on w
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:08:57 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
>> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>>
>> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on w
On Thu, 2 Mar 2023 11:17:10 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
> Perhaps @pavelrappo has any suggestion for adding clarifying Javadoc to a
> subclass without having to override the method? 🤔
You cannot do that.
-
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/12729
On Fri, 24 Feb 2023 16:08:57 GMT, Viktor Klang wrote:
>> Clarifies the distinction between expiration of the head of DelayQueue and
>> how it relates to `poll`, `take`, and `peek`. See discussion on
>> https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8297605
>>
>> @DougLea If possible, please weigh in on w
23 matches
Mail list logo
