On Tue, 3 May 2022 01:20:10 GMT, Joe Darcy <da...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> In the latest push, to address the concerns raised updated the proposed 
>> wording to, in plain text:
>> 
>> Java Runtime Environment specification maintenance version, not defined 
>> before the specification implemented by this runtime has undergone a 
>> maintenance release (optional). When defined, the value of this property may 
>> be interpreted as a positive integer. The value indicates the latest 
>> maintenance release the runtime is known to support. A later release may be 
>> supported by the environment. To indicate the first maintenance release this 
>> property will have the value "1"; to indicate the second maintenance 
>> release, this property will have the value "2", and so on.
>
> PS CSR Updated to reflect this push; please review: 
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8285764

The negative definition above permits the property always to be undefined, but 
we do want it to be defined when meaningful. It’s also getting to be an awful 
lot of text to add to the otherwise terse tabular summary of system properties 
in the [`System::getProperties()` 
specification](https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/18/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/System.html#getProperties()).

Consider using this text in the table:

> Java Runtime Environment specification maintenance version, which may be 
> interpreted as a positive integer (optional, see below)

and then this in a paragraph following the table:

> The {@code java.specification.maintenance.version} property is defined if the 
> specification implemented by this runtime at the time of its construction had 
> undergone a <a href="https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#3.6.4";>maintenance 
> release</a>. When defined, its value identifies that maintenance release. To 
> indicate the first maintenance release this property will have the value 
> {@code "1"}; to indicate the second maintenance release this property will 
> have the value {@code "2"}, and so on.

-------------

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8437

Reply via email to