On Tue, 2 Nov 2021 16:30:56 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
> This PR follows up one of the recent PRs, where I used a non-canonical > modifier order. Since the problem was noticed [^1], why not to address it at > mass? > > As far as I remember, the first mass-canonicalization of modifiers took place > in JDK-8136583 in 2015 [^2]. That change affected 1780 lines spanning 453 > files. Since then modifiers have become a bit lose, and it makes sense to > re-bless (using the JDK-8136583 terminology) them. > > This change was produced by running the below command followed by updating > the copyright years on the affected files where necessary: > > $ sh ./bin/blessed-modifier-order.sh src/java.base > > The resulting change is much smaller than that of 2015: 39 lines spanning 21 > files. > > [^1]: > https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2021-November/082987.html > (or https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/6191#pullrequestreview-794333365) > [^2]: > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2015-September/035217.html src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/Object.java line 282: > 280: * <li>For objects of type {@code Class,} by executing a > 281: * static synchronized method of that class. > 282: * </ul> In comments, I think the 'synchronized static 'reads better, the conventional order is for the code. ------------- PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/6213
