Skip to content
Permalink
Browse files

[JENKINS-43507] Fix spelling mistakes

  • Loading branch information...
stephenc committed May 5, 2017
1 parent 5333774 commit 49b92bb614f150b29e0fb126266eb9b7b1310c5f
@@ -42,9 +42,9 @@
* <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
* allowing overrides</li>
* <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link B} and be called "withXxx"</li>
* <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
* from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
* <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
* from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
* </li>
@@ -48,9 +48,9 @@
* <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
* allowing overrides</li>
* <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link C} and be called "withXxx"</li>
* <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
* from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
* <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
* from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
* </li>
@@ -44,9 +44,9 @@
* <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
* allowing overrides</li>
* <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link B} and be called "withXxx"</li>
* <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
* from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
* <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
* from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
* </li>
@@ -48,9 +48,9 @@
* <li>All methods should be either {@code final} or {@code abstract} unless there is a documented reason for
* allowing overrides</li>
* <li>All "setter" methods will return {@link C} and be called "withXxx"</li>
* <li>All "getter" methods will called "xxx()" callers should not assume that the returned value is resistent
* from concurrent changes but implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional to reduce intermediate allocations by
* <li>All "getter" methods will be called "xxx()". Callers should not assume that the returned value is resistant
* from concurrent changes. Implementations should ensure that the returned value is immutable by the caller.
* In other words, it is intentional for implementations to reduce intermediate allocations by
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(theList);} rather than the concurrency safe
* {@code return Collections.unmodifiableList(new ArrayList<>(theList));}
* </li>

0 comments on commit 49b92bb

Please sign in to comment.
You can’t perform that action at this time.