On 10/28/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Nathan Beyer wrote:
> I made mods to them, so that they would compile. We've discussed this
> in the past; there was some invalid generics syntax that was valid at
> the point of the JSR166 PFD. For maintenance purposes, it was easier
> to take the single tag of code from the concurrency CVS than try to do
> a mish/mash approach. As such, there were a few compile errors.
>
> The problem in ConcurrentHashMap was in the putAll method;
> Iterator<Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V> was change to Iterator<?
> extends Map.Entry<? extends K, ? extends V>.
Sorry Nathan, I had missed/forgotten that. Such a simple change does
not strike me as separately licenseable/copyrightable.
Did you specifically want to see the ASF comment block in that file or
would you be ok with a note in the implementation to show that it has
been modified from the original?
The changes are so trivial (no algorithmic changes), I don't think it
really matters. Just wanted to answer the post, so we knew what was
going on. I original put those headers in those files when I started
working with the code months ago based on suggestion on the mailing
list at the time, but I don't think the true triviality of the changes
were well understood.
> I'll have to look into what I changed in the test file, if that's needed.
ack.
Regards,
Tim
> On 10/27/06, Geir Magnusson Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Please do. All,as Tim said, we don't do mods to j.u.c....
>>
>> geir
>>
>>
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> > Why do two files in standard concurrent code have the standard ASF
>> > comment blocks?
>> >
>> >
>>
modules/concurrent/standard/src/main/java/java/util/concurrent/ConcurrentHashMap.java
>>
>> >
>>
modules/concurrent/standard/src/test/java/AtomicReferenceFieldUpdaterTest.java
>>
>> >
>> > It's not clear that there are any local modifications to these files.
>> > Unless somebody states otherwise I'll remove them.
>> >
>> > Regards
>> > Tim
>> >
>>
>
--
Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
