> On Nov 14, 2016, at 6:28 AM, Zoltán Majó <zoltan.m...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Here is the updated webrev with the updated text: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zmajo/8169000/webrev.01/ >
This spec uses “unreachable” to refer to when GC detects as unreachable. I think the current spec is correct. What about this suggested clarification? diff --git a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/package-info.java b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/package-info.java --- a/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/package-info.java +++ b/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/ref/package-info.java @@ -77,8 +77,12 @@ * references that are registered with it. If a registered reference * becomes unreachable itself, then it will never be enqueued. It is * the responsibility of the program using reference objects to ensure - * that the objects remain reachable for as long as the program is - * interested in their referents. + * that the objects remain strongly reachable for as long as the program + * is interested in their referents. + * + * <p> + * A Java virtual machine may implement optimization that could + * affects when objects become unreachable. * * <p> While some programs will choose to dedicate a thread to * removing reference objects from one or more queues and processing Peter, > On Nov 14, 2016, at 1:59 PM, Peter Levart <peter.lev...@gmail.com> wrote: > > "It is the responsibility of the program using reference objects to ensure > that the objects remain strongly reachable for as long as the program is > interested in their referents." > > ...could be written more nicely like: > > "It is the responsibility of the program to ensure that reference objects > remain strongly reachable for as long as it is interested in their referents." > > ...or even: > > "It is the responsibility of the program to ensure that reference objects > remain strongly reachable for as long as it is interested in tracking the > reachability of their referents." > Making it clear “strongly reachable” is a good suggestion. I don’t see word-smithing is needed in the original sentence; hence my above suggested change only adds the word “strongly” in this sentence. Mandy
