Thanks for review! I am still waiting for one +1. Note that I'll re-target the fix to jdk10.
----- danro...@gmail.com wrote: > Hi Sergey, > > Looks good to me. +1. > > These javadocs reminded me of the “old days” when we were expecting > more controls to evolve. :) I don’t think I ever did find a reliable > way to identify surround sound outputs, other than assuming a certain > platform specific order. > > -Dan > > > On Jun 12, 2017, at 7:29 PM, Sergey Bylokhov > <sergey.bylok...@oracle.com> wrote: > > > > Hello, > > Any volunteers to review? > >> > >> > >> Hello, > >> Please review the documentation fix for jdk9. > >> In the previous fixes the javadoc for javasound was cleared, but > there are some small window for improvements. > >> I suggest to check the specdiff first, because for some methods the > specification was reworked. > >> > >> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8181566 > >> Specdiff: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8181566/specdiff.00/overview-summary.html > >> Webrev can be found at: > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8181566/webrev.00 > >> > >> > >> Common issues: > >> - equals(),hashCode() have unusual description like "Finalizes the > hashcode method" > >> - Some classes like "Type" in "CompoundControl.java" has a notion > about static instances, while there are no such instances(I assume > this sentence a copied from other classes like from "Type" in > BooleanControl.java). > >> - In previous cleanup some classes and fields were not marked via > {@code } tag. > >> - In [1] Jonathan pointed to the documentation of html5 when the > </p> is optional. I applied the similar existed html5 rule [2] for > other tags </li>,</tr>,</td> - since we have no complicated > tables/lists/layouts this stuff became smaller. > >> - In some cases I updated the private specs as well, because I have > an idea to enable (someday) doclint for private fields/methods in > public packages. > >> > >> ccc will be filed after technical review. > >> > >> [1] > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/2d-dev/2017-May/008335.html > >> [2] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/syntax.html#syntax-tag-omission > >
