Hi Daniel so it looks like it was an intentional decision to support the NPE but looks like an oversight to update the javadoc?
I think you could go either way with this as I gotta believe their is a very low compatibility impact either way… > On Feb 15, 2019, at 1:46 PM, Daniel Fuchs <daniel.fu...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Hi Mandy, > > Here is the new webrev: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8216363/webrev.01/ > > It is much nicer than the previous version [1], but unfortunately > it makes the following JCK tests fail: > > api/java_util/logging/MemoryHandler/IsLoggable.html > api/java_util/logging/MemoryHandler/Publish.html > > These test expect the NPE even though the spec says that false > should be returned. I believe there was some disconnect between > the spec and the implementation at some point (see my > archeological finds [2] and [3] below). > > So what should we do? > > Keep webrev.0.1, write CSR and release notes, and fix the > JCK in 13? > > best regards, > > -- daniel > > [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~dfuchs/webrev_8216363/webrev.00/ > > Additional archeological finds: > > [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4769466 > [3] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-4935768 > > > On 14/02/2019 21:44, Mandy Chung wrote: >> On 2/14/19 12:39 PM, Daniel Fuchs wrote: >>> Let me redo my fix and see if the JCK complains. >> I'd be surprised if there is a JCK test expecting NPE. Will see. >> I suggest to update @param record to say "a LogRecord or null" >> to be explicit. >> Mandy > <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>