Hi Peter,
On 11/14/2016 10:59 PM, Peter Levart wrote:
Hi Zoltan,
On 11/14/2016 03:28 PM, Zoltán Majó wrote:
[...]
thank you for the suggestion and for the example program!
Here is the updated webrev with the updated text:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zmajo/8169000/webrev.01/
Does that look reasonable to you?
Yes, I think this is good. Maybe just a nit. This last statement:
"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."
What do you think?
yes, it sounds better, but probably it's best if we keep this change to
a minimum. So I'd add only the word "strongly" to that sentence.
Please see the updated webrev in my reply to Mandy.
Thank you!
Best regards,
Zoltan
Regards, Peter
Thank you!
Best regards,
Zoltan
The following modified test shows this situation:
public class WeaklyReachablePhantomReference {
static ReferenceQueue<Object> rq = new ReferenceQueue<>();
static WeakReference<PhantomReference<Object>> weakRefRef;
public static void main(final String[] args) throws Exception {
weakRefRef = new WeakReference<>(
new PhantomReference<>(
new Object(),
rq
)
);
// <- here
System.gc();
Reference rmRef = rq.remove(1000);
if (rmRef == null) {
System.out.println("PhantomReference NOT enqueued");
} else {
System.out.println("PhantomReference enqueued");
}
}
}
At "<-- here" the PhantomReference object becomes weakly reachable
while its referent becomes phantom reachable and this is enough for
PhantomReference to not be enqueued.
Regards, Peter
