RFR: 8023276: Java SE should include the full DOM API from JAXP
Hi, Three packages are missing from the DOM API documentation in JAXP: org.w3c.dom.views org.w3c.dom.ranges org.w3c.dom.traversal We added org.w3c.dom.views in JAXP 1.6 and fixed JDK-8006843. But since we were too close to the deadline for JAXP 1.6 MR, we left the other two packages for JDK 9. CCC has been approved for this addition. Please review. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/8023276/webrev/ Thanks, Joe
+1 On Jun 30, 2014, at 5:32 PM, huizhe wang <huizhe.wang@oracle.com> wrote:
Hi,
Three packages are missing from the DOM API documentation in JAXP: org.w3c.dom.views org.w3c.dom.ranges org.w3c.dom.traversal
We added org.w3c.dom.views in JAXP 1.6 and fixed JDK-8006843. But since we were too close to the deadline for JAXP 1.6 MR, we left the other two packages for JDK 9. CCC has been approved for this addition. Please review.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk9/8023276/webrev/
Thanks, Joe
Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037 Oracle Java Engineering 1 Network Drive Burlington, MA 01803 Lance.Andersen@oracle.com
On 6/30/14 2:32 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi,
Three packages are missing from the DOM API documentation in JAXP: org.w3c.dom.views org.w3c.dom.ranges org.w3c.dom.traversal
We added org.w3c.dom.views in JAXP 1.6 and fixed JDK-8006843. But since we were too close to the deadline for JAXP 1.6 MR, we left the other two packages for JDK 9. CCC has been approved for this addition. Please review.
thumbs up. Mandy
Thanks Mandy, Lance. The changeset is pushed. -Joe On 6/30/2014 5:02 PM, Mandy Chung wrote:
On 6/30/14 2:32 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
Hi,
Three packages are missing from the DOM API documentation in JAXP: org.w3c.dom.views org.w3c.dom.ranges org.w3c.dom.traversal
We added org.w3c.dom.views in JAXP 1.6 and fixed JDK-8006843. But since we were too close to the deadline for JAXP 1.6 MR, we left the other two packages for JDK 9. CCC has been approved for this addition. Please review.
thumbs up.
Mandy
Hi, Related to JDK-8023276[1] where we added two packages to JDK 9, we should update @since to have 1.9 value as well. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8049109/0/webrev/ [1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8023276 Cheers, Henry
Looks good Henry; cheers, -Joe On 07/02/2014 02:45 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
Related to JDK-8023276[1] where we added two packages to JDK 9, we should update @since to have 1.9 value as well.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8049109/0/webrev/
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8023276
Cheers, Henry
These packages were defined in JDK 1.5 / JAXP 1.3 (JSR 206). In that sense, they were in JDK since 1.5. For reasons I don't know, they were excluded from the Java API Documentation. From the tag conventions <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/index-137868.html#@since> [1], you may be right since it "Specify the product version when the Java name was added to the API specification". But it can be confusing to users since they've been using them since JDK 1.5 [1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/index-137868.htm... -Joe On 7/2/2014 3:43 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Looks good Henry; cheers,
-Joe
On 07/02/2014 02:45 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
Related to JDK-8023276[1] where we added two packages to JDK 9, we should update @since to have 1.9 value as well.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8049109/0/webrev/
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8023276
Cheers, Henry
I don't have a strong preference in this case, and I hear you that those classes are public and can be accessed in 1.5 even though it's not part of API specification of JDK. Considered DOM Level 2 is still listed as secondary information, and as the document you pointed out, 1.9 is used because that those APIs will become official in JDK 9. Lets give it a couple days before commit this, hopefuly some dicussion(along with other cases brought up in this thread[1]) will occur and lead to a concensus. Sometime I feel we need a supreme court for Java affairs to come out the final ruling on such stuff. :) [1] http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2014-July/027503.html Cheers, Henry On 07/02/2014 05:12 PM, huizhe wang wrote:
These packages were defined in JDK 1.5 / JAXP 1.3 (JSR 206). In that sense, they were in JDK since 1.5.
For reasons I don't know, they were excluded from the Java API Documentation. From the tag conventions <http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/index-137868.html#@since> [1], you may be right since it "Specify the product version when the Java name was added to the API specification". But it can be confusing to users since they've been using them since JDK 1.5
[1] http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/java/javase/documentation/index-137868.htm...
-Joe
On 7/2/2014 3:43 PM, Joe Darcy wrote:
Looks good Henry; cheers,
-Joe
On 07/02/2014 02:45 PM, Henry Jen wrote:
Hi,
Related to JDK-8023276[1] where we added two packages to JDK 9, we should update @since to have 1.9 value as well.
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~henryjen/jdk9/8049109/0/webrev/
[1] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8023276
Cheers, Henry
But it can be confusing to users since they've been using them since JDK 1.5
Related to JDK-8023276[1] where we added two packages to JDK 9
Speaking of which, has it occurred to anyone that it might be confusing to users that JDK 9 and JDK 1.9 are the same thing? Isn't it time we got rid of this absurdity? Michael Kay Saxonica
participants (6)
-
Henry Jen
-
huizhe wang
-
Joe Darcy
-
Lance Andersen
-
Mandy Chung
-
Michael Kay