- 
    Bug 
- 
    Resolution: Unresolved
- 
     P4 P4
- 
    None
- 
    1.4.0
- 
        Fix Understood
- 
        generic
- 
        generic
                    During a code review the following observations were made about the java.rmi.server.UID specification:
>> This is completely outside the scope of the bug review, but just a
>> couple of comments with regards to the UID javadoc: I take it that the
>> terms 'clash', 'unique' - and the 'equals' method have some relationship
>> to each other. But it does not seem to be explicitly called out.
>
> Fair enough-- they are all intended to refer to the meaning of UID
> equality specified by the equals method: same values for the "unique",
> "time", and "count" fields. "Clash" should probably just replaced
> with "equal". Uniqueness should probably be clarified in terms of the
> identifier comprising the three primitive values.
>
>> "An independently generated UID instance is unique over time" - should
>> that be "A UID instance independently generated using the no-arg
>> constructor is unique over time"
>
> Yes. Also, I see that the spec for the "count" value does not explain
> its meaning for a well-known identifier.
            
>> This is completely outside the scope of the bug review, but just a
>> couple of comments with regards to the UID javadoc: I take it that the
>> terms 'clash', 'unique' - and the 'equals' method have some relationship
>> to each other. But it does not seem to be explicitly called out.
>
> Fair enough-- they are all intended to refer to the meaning of UID
> equality specified by the equals method: same values for the "unique",
> "time", and "count" fields. "Clash" should probably just replaced
> with "equal". Uniqueness should probably be clarified in terms of the
> identifier comprising the three primitive values.
>
>> "An independently generated UID instance is unique over time" - should
>> that be "A UID instance independently generated using the no-arg
>> constructor is unique over time"
>
> Yes. Also, I see that the spec for the "count" value does not explain
> its meaning for a well-known identifier.