Looks fine. Mike
On May 15 2013, at 09:44 , Joe Darcy wrote: > On 05/14/2013 06:32 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> On 10/05/2013 22:01, Joe Darcy wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> Please (re)review this change to introduce Objects.requireNonNull(T, >>> Supplier<String>): >>> >>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/8014365.0/ >>> >>> The original change had to be pulled out because of a build issue (8012343: >>> Objects.requireNonNull(Object,Supplier) breaks genstubs build); I'll be >>> asking for a review on build-dev of the build-related change in langtools. >>> The test portion of the patch is slightly different than before because of >>> the intervening changes made for >>> >>> 8013712: Add Objects.nonNull and Objects.isNull >> I realize this has already been pushed but just to point out a missing >> parenthesis on line 272 in the javadoc, needs to be ")}". >> > > Sorry for introduce the javadoc issue. > > Please review this patch > > --- a/src/share/classes/java/util/Objects.java Mon May 13 22:16:55 2013 > -0700 > +++ b/src/share/classes/java/util/Objects.java Wed May 15 09:43:16 2013 > -0700 > @@ -269,7 +269,7 @@ > * Checks that the specified object reference is not {@code null} and > * throws a customized {@link NullPointerException} if it is. > * > - * <p>Unlike the method {@link requireNonNull(Object, String}, > + * <p>Unlike the method {@link #requireNonNull(Object, String)}, > * this method allows creation of the message to be deferred until > * after the null check is made. While this may confer a > * performance advantage in the non-null case, when deciding to > > and I'll file a bug a push the fix. > > Thanks, > > -Joe
