Re: [10] Review Request: 8181566 JavaSound javadoc clarification

[Phil Race]

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8181566/webrev.00/src/java.desktop/share/classes/javax/sound/sampled/AudioSystem.java.sdiff.html
1338 * No default are specified, Either are -> is, or "default" -> 
"defaults" 
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~serb/8181566/webrev.00/src/java.desktop/share/classes/javax/sound/sampled/LineEvent.java.sdiff.html 
I don't see the point of prettying up the docs on the un-used, commented 
out constants. Can't we just delete them ? Seems like the decision was 
made years ago not to include them in the API -phil.

On 07/05/2017 11:38 AM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
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