On Mon, 23 May 2022 21:09:24 GMT, Maurizio Cimadamore <[email protected]>
wrote:
>> This is the implementation of JEP 428: Structured Concurrency (Incubator).
>>
>> This is a non-final API that provides a gentle on-ramp to structure a task
>> as a family of concurrent subtasks, and to coordinate the subtasks as a unit.
>
> src/jdk.incubator.concurrent/share/classes/jdk/incubator/concurrent/StructuredTaskScope.java
> line 88:
>
>> 86: * {@code join} method after forking.
>> 87: *
>> 88: * <p> StructuredTaskScope defines the {@link #shutdown() shutdown}
>> method to shut down a
>
> This sentence, because of the place where it appears, is a bit confusing. So
> far we only know about the fact that a scope has an owner thread. So it seems
> odd that shutdown could be called _while_ the owner thread is waiting on a
> `join`. Of course, then you read what's next, and you discover that: (a)
> shutdown might be called by a custom scope subclass and that (b) shutdown is
> confined to the threads contained in this task scope - but this definition is
> only given much later.
I see your point. The intention is to introduce all the public methods before
introducing the subclasses or policies. I think I can adjust this sentence to
make it clear that a subtask may call shutdown while the owner is waiting in
join.
> src/jdk.incubator.concurrent/share/classes/jdk/incubator/concurrent/StructuredTaskScope.java
> line 353:
>
>> 351: *
>> 352: * <p> The {@code handleComplete} method should be thread safe. It
>> may be
>> 353: * invoked by several threads at around the same.
>
> Something is missing? E.g. "at around the same TIME" ? (I'd suggest just
> using "concurrently")
Thanks, it was supposed to say "around the same time" but saying "concurrently"
would be better.
> src/jdk.incubator.concurrent/share/classes/jdk/incubator/concurrent/StructuredTaskScope.java
> line 376:
>
>> 374: *
>> 375: * <p> If this task scope is {@linkplain #shutdown() shutdown} (or
>> in the process
>> 376: * of shutting down) then {@code fork} returns a Future
>> representing a {@link
>
> Future in plaintext?
Yes, Daniel also pointed this point that there are a few uses of
"StructuredTaskScope" that should also use {@code ...}.
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8787
