Page History

||Completed||Priority||Locked||CreatedDate||CompletedDate||Assignee||Name||
|T|M|F|1270153006582|1270216402886|svoboda|and specifies its lack of thread-safety in the documentation. => rephrase to : and documents its lack of thread-safety.  <---- FIXED ~DS|
|T|M|F|1270152984383|1270219726077|rcs|protecting fields is a weak word. Should be changed to synchronizing access to fields.|
|T|M|F|1270152995003|1270327832435|rcs_mgr|and not because it documents its lack of thread-safety; suggest removing this|
|FT|M|F|1270153016807|          | 1270327838669|rcs_mgr|The title can also be Ensure classes containing publicly accessible mutable static fields are thread-safe|
|F|M|F|1270215734760|          |svoboda|"Classes that use {{static}} fields that are both publicly accessible and mutable must always protect accesses to their fields, *regardless of their documentation.*" => A class that is internally providing synchronization would not document that it is not thread-safe. So I don't understand why you added the words in bold.|
|F|M|F|1270215935982|          |svoboda|"The class relies on clients to externally synchronize the object and *this class documents* its lack of thread-safety" => "this class" occurs twice in the sentence. Should be "and documents its lack of thread safety".|
|F|M|F|1270325608947|          |dmohindr|"any assurances that the class is safe-thread."  => safe-thread should be thread-safe!|