Thanks!
Regards,
Alexander
On 17.04.2015 19:33, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi Alexander,
That fixed the issue in the existing Javadoc. The JAXP changes look
good now.
Thanks for doing this!
Best,
Joe
On 4/17/2015 4:36 AM, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello Joe,
> [jw] as I mentioned, <pre></pre> is needed for the code snippet.
Fixed, please see
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxp/src/java.xml/share/classes/javax/xml/stream/XMLStreamReader.java.udiff.html
> [jw] I saw in a few cases where two @code tags are next to each other
Fixed in a couple of places.
Regards,
Alexander
On 16.04.2015 19:57, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi Alexander,
Looks very good. Thanks for making all the changes!
Please note that for the JAXWS, you may need to check with
JAXWS/Miran (miroslav....@oracle.com). Changes to JAXWS generally
goes into the standalone first. They do periodic integration.
For the jaxp portion:
--- old/src/java.xml/share/classes/javax/xml/datatype/Duration.java
2015-04-16 13:50:25.249473095 +0400
+++ new/src/java.xml/share/classes/javax/xml/datatype/Duration.java
2015-04-16 13:50:25.161473099 +0400
@@ -725,37 +725,37 @@
*
- * @return the relationship between <code>this</code>
<code>Duration</code>and <code>duration</code> parameter as
+ * @return the relationship between {@code this} {@code
Duration}and {@code duration} parameter as
[jw] I saw in a few cases where two @code tags are next to each
other, you may do a s/} {@code//g to combine them. A space is also
missing before 'and': e.g. {@code Duration} and.
---
old/src/java.xml/share/classes/javax/xml/stream/XMLStreamReader.java
2015-04-16 13:50:28.197472963 +0400
+++
new/src/java.xml/share/classes/javax/xml/stream/XMLStreamReader.java
2015-04-16 13:50:28.105472967 +0400
@@ -542,7 +543,7 @@
* If the number of characters actually copied is less than the
"length", then there is no more text.
* Otherwise, subsequent calls need to be made until all text has
been retrieved. For example:
*
- *<code>
+ * {@code
* int length = 1024;
* char[] myBuffer = new char[ length ];
*
@@ -553,7 +554,7 @@
* if (nCopied < length)
* break;
* }
- * </code>
+ * }
[jw] as I mentioned, <pre></pre> is needed for the code snippet.
BTW, have you compiled and verified the Javadoc after the changes?
Thanks,
Joe
On 4/16/2015 7:07 AM, alexander stepanov wrote:
I'm sorry, two extra files touched -
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MailcapCommandMap.java.udiff.html
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MimetypesFileTypeMap.java.udiff.html
Hopefully that's all for this bug...
Thanks,
Alexander
On 16.04.2015 15:48, alexander stepanov wrote:
Please note also that a couple of new files were touched:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html>
On 15.04.2015 19:12, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello Joe,
The copyright changes were reverted.
Please review the updated fix:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/
("<code></code>" replaced with "{@code}", removed unnecessary
"</p>", used "@literal" tag).
Thanks,
Alexander
On 13.04.2015 21:19, huizhe wang wrote:
On 4/13/2015 4:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 13/04/2015 12:22, alexander stepanov wrote:
Hello Joe,
Thank you for the notes;
> Copyright year shall not be changed.
That seems to be a bit controversial point; sometimes (while
cleaning docs) I was asked to do that, other times - not to do
that. Our internal policy seemingly assigns to change the 2nd
date every time the sources were touched (but that may be a
question of ambiguous interpretation).
But of course I can easily revert these changes if you're
totally sure it should be done.
This has always been confusing. Some areas insist on updating
the copyright dates, others don't. AFAIK, it has always been
optional. I think the original assumption was that the
update_copyright_year script (in the top-level repo) be run
periodically to do bulk updates. Unfortunately that script
doesn't seem to be run very often now and this strengthens the
case to update the dates on a continuous basis. I have not come
across the argument that html tidy tasks that don't change the
javadoc should not update the copyright date. The general topic
probably should move to jdk9-dev and get this decided once and
documented in the developer guide.
I think the key question to ask is: is this the code I can claim
Copyright with? To me, format, code style, html tags and other
minor changes, these are not code changes one can claim
copyright with.
The date of a Copyright establishes how far back the claim is
made. In case where the work is substantially revised, a new
Copyright claim is established, which is what the 2nd year is
about.
In this case, esp. for the JAXP API (e.g. javax.xml.datatype),
I'd like to see the years maintained because those are the years
the API was designed and modified. The "tidy warnings" change
did not change the API.
-Joe
-Alan
