Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-06-28 Thread Volker Simonis
njdk.java.net; Alex Buckley; Kumar > Srinivasan; Marvin Ma > Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of > java.specification.version > > Ping - shouldn't we fix this issue before JDK 9 Feature Complete? > > Could you please also comment on my remarks regardi

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-29 Thread Alan Bateman
On 29/04/2016 21:03, Martin Buchholz wrote: Today, I tried google-searching for "LinkedList se 9" which sent me to http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/util/LinkedList.html?is-external=true which gives me 404. That's an improvement on the stale +104 docs, and should prod Google's

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-29 Thread Martin Buchholz
Today, I tried google-searching for "LinkedList se 9" which sent me to http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/util/LinkedList.html?is-external=true which gives me 404. That's an improvement on the stale +104 docs, and should prod Google's engine into learning about better docs, but it may

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-29 Thread Alan Bateman
On 27/04/2016 12:26, Martin Buchholz wrote: I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package class se 9" only finds the old one +104 at http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/Package.html Why can't

RE: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Iris Clark
lex Buckley; Kumar Srinivasan; Marvin Ma Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version Ping - shouldn't we fix this issue before JDK 9 Feature Complete? Could you please also comment on my remarks regarding the relat

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Volker Simonis
Yes, this was the version I've looked to as well. Thanks for pointing this out. On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:26 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: > I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this > sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Alan Bateman
On 27/04/2016 12:26, Martin Buchholz wrote: I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package class se 9" only finds the old one +104 at http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/Package.html Why can't

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Martin Buchholz
I think the jdk9 docs have moved (again, g - I complain about this sort of thing every release) and so a google search for "package class se 9" only finds the old one +104 at http://download.java.net/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/Package.html Why can't there be a redirect instead of leaving the old

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Alan Bateman
On 27/04/2016 10:54, Volker Simonis wrote: : Thanks for the clarification. As far as I can see, this updated javadoc is still only in the jigsaw repo so I didn't read it before. It's in JDK 9 since jdk-9+111. I just checked the online/browsable docs [1] and it's there. -Alan [1]

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Volker Simonis
On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 11:15 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 27/04/2016 09:28, Volker Simonis wrote: >> >> Ping - shouldn't we fix this issue before JDK 9 Feature Complete? >> >> Could you please also comment on my remarks regarding the relation of >>

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Alan Bateman
On 27/04/2016 09:28, Volker Simonis wrote: Ping - shouldn't we fix this issue before JDK 9 Feature Complete? Could you please also comment on my remarks regarding the relation of java.lang.Package.getSpecificationVersion() to JEP and 223 and and my question why the Version class is not in a

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-27 Thread Volker Simonis
ge? > As far as I know, jdk is not a standard Java package and thus not > enforced by the Java standard (please correct me if I'm wrong). > Shouldn't the Version class be in a standard Java package such that > it's implementation will be mandatory for all Java implementations? > > Regards

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-07 Thread Volker Simonis
r > Regards, > Iris > > -Original Message- > From: Volker Simonis [mailto:volker.simo...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:26 AM > To: Java Core Libs > Cc: verona-...@openjdk.java.net > Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of >

RE: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-06 Thread Iris Clark
o...@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2016 10:26 AM To: Java Core Libs Cc: verona-...@openjdk.java.net Subject: Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version Hi, can somebody please review this trivial change? Regards, Volker On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:47 P

Re: RFR(XXS): 8149519: Investigate implementation of java.specification.version

2016-04-05 Thread Volker Simonis
Hi, can somebody please review this trivial change? Regards, Volker On Mon, Apr 4, 2016 at 6:47 PM, Volker Simonis wrote: > Hi, > > can I please have a review for this small fix: > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~simonis/webrevs/2016/8149519 >