|
Quick Lists
|
|
Bug ID:
|
6443670
|
|
Votes
|
0
|
|
Synopsis
|
Javadoc for AtomicInteger (et.al.) missing information - get() v.s. intValue()
|
|
Category
|
java:classes_util_concurrent
|
|
Reported Against
|
|
|
Release Fixed
|
|
|
State
|
5-Cause Known,
bug
|
|
Priority:
|
4-Low
|
|
Related Bugs
|
|
|
Submit Date
|
27-JUN-2006
|
|
Description
|
FULL PRODUCT VERSION :
A DESCRIPTION OF THE PROBLEM :
The javadoc for AtomicInteger and the other atomic number classes should state if get() and intValue() are equivalent, or if they are not it should document any differences.
The other xxxValue() methods inherited from Number should also clarified.
STEPS TO FOLLOW TO REPRODUCE THE PROBLEM :
read the documentation
EXPECTED VERSUS ACTUAL BEHAVIOR :
EXPECTED -
the reader should understand if the the xxxValue() methods are equivalent
ACTUAL -
the reader is left to assume that this is true
REPRODUCIBILITY :
This bug can be reproduced always.
CUSTOMER SUBMITTED WORKAROUND :
read the source
Posted Date : 2006-06-27 00:06:22.0
|
|
Work Around
|
N/A
|
|
Evaluation
|
It's hard to imagine another implementation for intValue() than to call get().
There's a tradeoff here between extra precision and excessive pedantry.
Adding an explicit spec that intValue() is precisely equivalent to
get() seems reasonable.
Posted Date : 2006-06-27 03:31:45.0
|
|
Comments
|
PLEASE NOTE: JDK6 is formerly known as Project Mustang
|
|
|
|
