On Thu, 15 Aug 2024 08:28:24 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This PR fixes a few trivial grammar issues and typos in documentation. >> >> The main issue is the use of the word "timeout". To my mind, timeout, a >> duration, is not the same as deadline, which is a point in time, an instant, >> which allows "before" and "after". While one can think of timeout as of an >> event, which can occur, it usually expires, or elapses. An activity can also >> "time out" (phrasal verb). >> >> I think the proposed change might read better and match wording already used >> throughout `java.util.concurrent.**`, for example, here: >> >> * >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/00e6c63cd12e3f92d0c1d007aab4f74915616ffb/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ExecutorService.java#L211-L223 >> * >> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/fbe4cc96e223882a18c7ff666fe6f68b3fa2cfe4/src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/locks/AbstractQueuedSynchronizer.java#L1019-L1036 >> >> >> @DougLea, thoughts? > > Pavel Rappo has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional > commit since the last revision: > > Fix grammatical tense Marked as reviewed by aivanov (Reviewer). src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinPool.java line 858: > 856: * usages of ForkJoinTasks ignore interrupt status when executing > 857: * or awaiting completion. Otherwise, reporting task results or > 858: * exceptions is preferred to throwing InterruptedExceptions, I wonder whether _“InterruptedExceptions”_ should be marked up with `{@code InterruptedException}`s to refer to the class. As far as I can see, classes and methods aren't marked up with `{@code}` here, so it's better to leave it as is. src/java.base/share/classes/java/util/concurrent/ForkJoinTask.java line 1076: > 1074: * Tries to join this task, returning true if it completed > 1075: * (possibly exceptionally) before the given timeout elapsed and > 1076: * the current thread has not been interrupted. Suggestion: * (possibly exceptionally) before the given timeout elapsed and if * the current thread has not been interrupted. Would it be clearer with another _“if”_? I assume, the meaning is “…returning true if it completed … and if the current thread has not been interrupted.” ------------- PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20584#pullrequestreview-2240653963 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20584#discussion_r1718569155 PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/20584#discussion_r1718579194
