@@ -143,7 +143,7 @@ Threads and Executors
143143 - [ Thread is named?] ( #name-threads )
144144 - [ Can use ` ExecutorService ` instead of creating a new ` Thread ` each time some method is called?
145145 ] ( #reuse-threads )
146- - [ ` ExecutorService ` s are * not* created within short-lived objects (but rather reused)?
146+ - [ ExecutorServices are * not* created within short-lived objects (but rather reused)?
147147 ] ( #reuse-threads )
148148 - [ No network I/O in a CachedThreadPool?] ( #cached-thread-pool-no-io )
149149 - [ No blocking (incl. I/O) operations in a ` ForkJoinPool ` or in a parallel Stream pipeline?
@@ -1139,10 +1139,11 @@ whether a `ThreadGroup` should be specified. Many of such rules can be effective
11391139** ` new Thread(...).start() ` ** , in some methods that may be called repeatedly? Is it possible to
11401140delegate the work to a cached or a shared ` ExecutorService ` instead?
11411141
1142- A weaker form of this problem is when a ** ` Thread ` (or an ` ExecutorService ` ) is created and managed
1142+ Another form of this problem is when a ** ` Thread ` (or an ` ExecutorService ` ) is created and managed
11431143within objects (in other words, [ active objects] ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_object ) ) that
11441144are relatively short-lived.** Is it possible to reuse executors by creating them one level up the
1145- stack and passing shared executors to constructors of the short-lived objects?
1145+ stack and passing shared executors to constructors of the short-lived objects, or a shared
1146+ ` ExecutorService ` stored in a static field?
11461147
11471148<a name =" cached-thread-pool-no-io " ></a >
11481149[ #] ( #cached-thread-pool-no-io ) TE.3. ** Aren’t some network I/O operations performed in an
0 commit comments