Donald,
While it was reasonable to raise the spec issues on core-libs-dev,
any/all questions about
javac code should be addressed to compiler-...@openjdk.java.net.
That being said,
* any comment labelled "// TODO" in new code seems questionable
* the copyright date on the test is wrong and should probably be 2019
* the test uses tabs instead of spaces
* direct writes to System.err are probably wrong
-- Jon
On 03/13/2019 02:38 PM, Donald Kwakkel wrote:
Attached patch with tests so first the bug for java11 can be fixed and
backported.
Would be nice if someone can guide me how to continue with this and/or
can reply on my previous questions.
Op di 5 mrt. 2019 om 07:11 schreef Donald Kwakkel <dkwak...@gmail.com>:
On 02/28/2019 01:06 PM, Alan Bateman wrote:
On 28/02/2019 20:58, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
Looking at the revised JAR specification, approved in [1], it is
disappointing that the spec contains text which is specific to
a JAR file being used in a classloader:
|The resulting URLs are inserted into the search path of the class
loader opening the context JAR immediately following the path of the
context JAR. Any duplicated URLs are omitted.|
That text would seem not to apply to javac and other tools that may wish
to process the class files in a JAR file.
That should be fixed as it should apply at compile-time too.
-Alan
|Agreed it might be good to fix it if possible. All the preceding text
is good, and can be handled by javac. The only questionable bit is the
text "Any duplicated URLs are omitted" which could be moved up a bit in
the spec to a new paragraph, and maybe rephrased to use "ignored"
instead of "omitted". If that were done, all the stuff about class
loaders could be taken as non-normative text.
So if I am correct the answer to Question 2 is: Yes, behavior must be the same.
What are the next steps to take for this? And can someone also answer my
other questions?:
Question 1: Where can I find the tests for these changes?
Question 2: Where should the common code for this be located?
Question 3: Is it an idea to first implement below patch and backport
that, and in addition as new ticket implement the new behaviour also
for javac?
Question 4:Is this they way to do it, or is there a better way to
provide debug information to users running javac?
