Hi Pavel.
This topic is addressed in the process discussion on the OpenJDK 6
project page:
"As an implementation of the Java SE 6 specification, all changes to
OpenJDK 6 must be allowable within that specification. This requirement
precludes many API changes. Acceptable API changes include those
permitted by the endorsed standards mechanism, such as upgrading to a
newer version of a standalone technology, like a component JSR. One
example of such an API change was the upgrade of JAX-WS from 2.0 to 2.1
in OpenJDK 6 build b06.
Changes allowable within the Java SE 6 specification may still be
rejected for inclusion in OpenJDK 6 if the behavioral compatibility risk
is judged as too large. Behavioral compatibility concerns implementation
properties of the JDK. Clients of the JDK can knowingly or unknowingly
come to rely upon implementation-specification behaviors not guaranteed
by the specification and care should be taken to not break such
applications needlessly. In contrast, if a change is appropriate for
every other JDK release train, it is generally appropriate for OpenJDK 6
too. Examples of such universal changes include security fixes and time
zone information updates."
http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jdk6/
-Joe
Pavel Tisnovsky wrote:
Hi Phil,
thank you for review. I'm preparing several backports to JDK 6, so I'd like to
know (to save your and mine time :-) if every backport containing any change in
API JavaDoc (even minor clarification etc.) can not be pushed to JDK 6?
Cheers,
Pavel
Phil Race wrote:
That was considered to be a specification change, or at least
clarification and
went through the CCC process for API changes for JDK 7. YOu will notice
that
you are changing some public API javadoc here. As such I don't think its
a good candidate for a backport.
-phil.
On 9/9/2011 2:02 AM, Pavel Tisnovsky wrote:
Greetings,
I'd like to backport
5082756: Image I/O plug-ins set metadata boolean attributes to "true"
or "false"
into OpenJDK6
Webrev is here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ptisnovs/5082756/
This change has been tested without problems.
Can anybody please review this change& assign bug ID to it?
Thank you in advance,
Pavel
