Hello Lance,

Yes, to be honest, I also fear to push at once a single changeset for jdk touching thousands of files.

Moreover, I'm pretty sure that e.g. java.desktop part should go to a client repository instead of dev, changes for client and security libs should be approved by corresponding dev teams etc. Also, probably some of these cosmetic changes should be postponed for now to avoid potential merging issues for people who really do something valuable.

So I'll try to split the initial overall fix for jdk part into some reasonable amount of sub-tasks and send RFRs one by one, as earlier.

Thanks,
Alexander

On 10/1/2015 3:40 PM, Lance Andersen wrote:
Hi Alexander,

Personally, I would find it easier to review if the changes were sent out by category/module vs one large patch as it is easier to miss things.

Also for technologies such as jaxws, these will need to go to the external workspace at the same time for the technology so these should definitely be kept separate.

Best
Lance
On Oct 1, 2015, at 7:31 AM, Alexander Stepanov <alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>> wrote:



So if you don't have objections, I'll delay for a several days and then publish a final RFR (probably containing changes in some other repos like jaxws, corba or jaxp) which would be more formal (containing bug # and the final specdiff report).

Thanks again,
Alexander


On 10/1/2015 9:54 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Hi s'marks,
You probably don't need to absolutify paths.
And you can easily handle multiple args.

(just for fun!)
Checks for javadoc comment; handles popular html entities; handles multiple lines; handles both tt and code:

#!/bin/bash
find "$@" -name '*.java' | \
 xargs -r perl -p0777i -e \
'do {} while s~^ *\*.*\K<(tt|code)>((?:[^<>{}\&\@]|&(?:lt|gt|amp);)*)</\1>~$_=$2; s/&lt;/</g; s/&gt;/>/g; s/&amp;/&/g; "{\@code $_}"~mgie'


On Wed, Sep 30, 2015 at 6:16 PM, Stuart Marks <stuart.ma...@oracle.com <mailto:stuart.ma...@oracle.com> <mailto:stuart.ma...@oracle.com>> wrote:

   Hi Alexander, Martin,

   The challenge of Perl file slurping and Emacs one-liners was too
   much to bear.

   This is Java, so one-liners are hardly possible. Still, there are
   a bunch of improvements that can be made to the Java version. (OK,
   and I'm showing off a bit.)

   Take a look at this:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~smarks/misc/SimpleTagEditorSmarks1.java <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esmarks/misc/SimpleTagEditorSmarks1.java> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Esmarks/misc/SimpleTagEditorSmarks1.java>

   I haven't studied the output exhaustively, but it seems to do a
   reasonably good job for the common cases. I ran it over java.lang
   and I noticed a few cases where there is markup embedded within
   <code></code> text, which should be looked at more closely.

   I don't particularly care if you use my version, but there are
   some techniques that I'd strongly recommend that you consider
   using in any such tool. In particular:

    - Pattern.DOTALL to do multi-line matches
    - Pattern.CASE_INSENSITIVE
    - try-with-resources to ensure that files are closed properly
    - NIO instead of old java.io <http://java.io> APIs, particularly
   Files.walk() and streams
    - use Scanner to deal with input file buffering
    - Scanner's stream support (I recently added this to JDK 9)

   Enjoy,

   s'marks



   On 9/29/15 2:23 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:

       Hi Alexander,

       your change looks good.  It's OK to have manual corrections
       for automated
       mega-changes like this, as long as they all revert changes.

       Random comments:

       Should you publish your specdiff?  I guess not - it would be
       empty!

                    while((s = br.readLine()) != null) {

       by matching only one line at a time, you lose the ability to make
       replacements that span lines.  Perlers like to "slurp" in the
       entire file
       as a single string.

                s = s.replace( "<CODE>", tag1);
                s = s.replace( "<Code>", tag1);
                s = s.replace("</CODE>", tag2);
                s = s.replace("</Code>", tag2);

       Why not use case-insensitive regex?

       Here's an emacs-lisp one-liner I've been known to use:

       (defun tt-code ()
          (interactive)
          (query-replace-regexp
       "<\\(tt\\|code\\)>\\([^&<>\\\\]+\\)</\\1>" "{@code
       \\2}"))

       With more work, one can automate transformation of embedded
       things like &lt;

       But of course, it's not even possible to transform ALL uses of
       <code> to
       {@code, if there was imaginative use of nested html tags.


       On Tue, Sep 29, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Alexander Stepanov <
alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>
       <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>> wrote:

           Updated: a few manual corrections were made (as @linkplain
           tags displays
           nested {@code } literally):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/tmp/codeTags/jdk.patch <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/jdk.patch> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/jdk.patch>
           -checked with specdiff (which of course does not cover
           documentation for
           internal packages), no unexpected diffs detected.

           Regards,
           Alexander


           On 9/27/2015 4:52 PM, Alexander Stepanov wrote:

               Hello Martin,

               Here is some simple app. to replace <code></code> tags
               with a new-style
               {@code } one (which is definitely not so elegant as
               the Perl one-liners):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/tmp/codeTags/SimpleTagEditor.java <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/SimpleTagEditor.java>
               
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/SimpleTagEditor.java>

               Corresponding patch for jdk and replacement log (~62k
               of the tag changes):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/tmp/codeTags/jdk.patch <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/jdk.patch>
               <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/jdk.patch>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/tmp/codeTags/replace.log <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/replace.log>
               <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/tmp/codeTags/replace.log>
               (sorry, I have to check the correctness of the patch
               with specdiff yet,
               so this is rather demo at the moment).

               Don't know if these changes (cosmetic by nature) are
               desired for now or
               not. Moreover, probably some part of them should go to
               another repos (e.g.,
               awt, swing -> "client" instead of "dev").

               Regards,
               Alexander



               ----- Исходное сообщение -----
От: alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>
               <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>
Кому: marti...@google.com <mailto:marti...@google.com> <mailto:marti...@google.com> Копия: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net <mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
               <mailto:core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net>
               Отправленные: Четверг, 24 Сентябрь 2015 г 16:06:56 GMT
               +03:00 Москва,
               Санкт-Петербург, Волгоград
               Тема: Re: RFR [9] 8133651: replace some <tt> tags
               (obsolete in html5) in
               core-libs docs

               Hello Martin,

               Thank you for review and for the notes!

                  > I'm biased of course, but I like the approach I
               took with
               blessed-modifier-order:
                  > - make the change completely automated
                  > - leave "human editing" for a separate change
                  > - publish the code used to make the automated
               change (in my case,
               typically a perl one-liner)

               Automated replacement has an obvious advantage: it is
               fast and massive.
               But there are some disadvantages at the same time
               (just IMHO).

               Using script it is quite easy to miss some not very
               trivial cases, e.g.:
               - remove unnecessary linebreaks, like
                   * <tt>someCode
                   * </tt>
               (which would be better to replace with single-line
               {@code someCode};
               - joining of successive terms, like "<tt>ONE</tt>,
               <tt>TWO</tt>,
               <tt>THREE</tt>" -> "{@code ONE, TWO, THREE}";
               - errors like extra or missing "&lt;" or "&gt;": *
               <tt>Collection
               &lt;T></tt>", - there were a lot of them;
               - some cases when <tt></tt> should be replaced with
               <code></code>, not
               {@code } (e.g. because of unicode characters inside of
               code etc.);
               - extra tags inside of <tt> or <code> which should be
               moved outside of
               {@code }, like <tt><i>someCode</i></tt> or
               <tt><b>someCode</b></tt>;
               - simple removing of needless tags, like "<tt>{@link
               ...}</tt>" ->
               "{@link ...}";
               - replace HTML codes with symbols ('<', '>', '@', ...)
               - etc.
               - plus some other formatting changes and fixes for
               misprints which would
               be omitted during the automated replacement (and
               wouldn't be done in
               future manually because there is no motivation for
               repeated processing).

               So sometimes it may be difficult to say where is the
               border between
               "trivial" and "human-editing" cases (and the portion
               of "non-trivial
               cases" is definitely not minor); moreover, even the
               automated
               replacement requires the subsequent careful review
               before publishing of
               webrev (as well as by reviewers who probably wouldn't
               be happy to review
               hundreds of files at the same time) and iterative
               checks/corrections.
               specdiff is very useful for this task but also cannot
               fully cover the
               diffs (as some changes are situated in the internal
               com/... sun/...
               packages).

               Moreover, I'm sure that some reviewers would be
               annoyed with the fact
               that some (quite simple) changes were postponed
               because they are "not
               too trivial to be fixed just now" (because they will
               suspect they would
               be postponed forever). So the patch creator would
               (probably) receive
               some advices during the review like "please fix also
               fix this and that"
               (which is normal, of course).

               So my preference was to make the changes package by
               package (in some
               reasonable amount of files) not postponing part of the
               changes for the
               future (sorry for these boring repeating review
               requests). Please note
               that all the above mentioned is *rather explanation of
               my motivation
               than objection* :) (and of course I used some text
               editor replace
               automation which is surely not so advanced as Perl).

                  > It's probably correct, but I would have left it
               out of this change
               Yes, I see. Reverted (please update the web page):
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8133651/jdk.00/index.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/index.html>
               
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/index.html>

               Thanks,
               Alexander

               P.S. The <tt> replacement job is mostly (I guess,
               ~80%) complete. But
               probably this approach should be used if some similar
               replacement task
               for, e.g., <code></code> tags would be planned in
               future (there are
               thousands of them).


               On 9/24/2015 6:10 AM, Martin Buchholz wrote:


                   On Sat, Sep 19, 2015 at 6:58 AM, Alexander Stepanov
<alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>
                   <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>
                   <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com
                   <mailto:alexander.v.stepa...@oracle.com>>> wrote:

                         Hello,

                         Could you please review the following fix
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8133651/jdk.00/ <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/>
                   <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/>
                                            
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8133651/jaxws.00/index.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jaxws.00/index.html>
                   
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jaxws.00/index.html>
                                            
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jaxws.00/index.html


                         for
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8133651

                         Just another portion of deprecated <tt> (and
                   <xmp>) tags replaced
                         with {@code }. Some misprints were also fixed.


                   I'm biased of course, but I like the approach I
                   took with
                   blessed-modifier-order:
                   - make the change completely automated
                   - leave "human editing" for a separate change
                   - publish the code used to make the automated
                   change (in my case,
                   typically a perl one-liner)


                         The following (expected) changes were
                   detected by specdiff:
                         - removed needless dashes in java.util.Locale,
                         - removed needless curly brace in
                   xml.bind.annotation.XmlElementRef


                   I would do a separate automated "removed needless
                   dashes" changeset.


                         Please let me know if the following changes
                   are desirable or not:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8133651/jdk.00/src/jdk.jconsole/share/classes/sun/tools/jconsole/Formatter.java.udiff.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/src/jdk.jconsole/share/classes/sun/tools/jconsole/Formatter.java.udiff.html>
                   
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/src/jdk.jconsole/share/classes/sun/tools/jconsole/Formatter.java.udiff.html>
                         <
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8133651/jdk.00/src/jdk.jconsole/share/classes/sun/tools/jconsole/Formatter.java.udiff.html




                   This is an actual change to the behavior of this
                   code - the
                   maintainers of jconsole need to approve it. It's
                   probably correct,
                   but I would have left it out of this change. If
                   you remove it, then I
                   approve this change.






<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif><http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>
<http://oracle.com/us/design/oracle-email-sig-198324.gif>Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering
1 Network Drive
Burlington, MA 01803
lance.ander...@oracle.com <mailto:lance.ander...@oracle.com>




Reply via email to