RFR [9] 8077332: tidy warnings from javax/xml

[Lance Andersen]

Hi Alexander,

These seem to be OK

Best
Lance
On Apr 16, 2015, at 10:07 AM, alexander stepanov <alexander.v.stepanov at oracle.com> wrote:

> I'm sorry, two extra files touched -
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MailcapCommandMap.java.udiff.html
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.activation/share/classes/javax/activation/MimetypesFileTypeMap.java.udiff.html
> 
> Hopefully that's all for this bug...
> 
> Thanks,
> Alexander
> 
> On 16.04.2015 15:48, alexander stepanov wrote:
>> Please note also that a couple of new files were touched:
>> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PostConstruct.java.udiff.html> 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eavstepan/8077332/webrev.01/jaxws/src/java.annotations.common/share/classes/javax/annotation/PreDestroy.java.udiff.html> 
>> 
>> On 15.04.2015 19:12, alexander stepanov wrote:
>>> Hello Joe,
>>> 
>>> The copyright changes were reverted.
>>> 
>>> Please review the updated fix:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~avstepan/8077332/webrev.01/
>>> 
>>> ("<code></code>" replaced with "{@code}", removed unnecessary "</p>", used "@literal" tag).
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Alexander
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 13.04.2015 21:19, huizhe wang wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> On 4/13/2015 4:42 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>>>>> On 13/04/2015 12:22, alexander stepanov wrote:
>>>>>> Hello Joe,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thank you for the notes;
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> > Copyright year shall not be changed.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> That seems to be a bit controversial point; sometimes (while cleaning docs) I was asked to do that, other times - not to do that. Our internal policy seemingly assigns to change the 2nd date every time the sources were touched (but that may be a question of ambiguous interpretation).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> But of course I can easily revert these changes if you're totally sure it should be done.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> This has always been confusing. Some areas insist on updating the copyright dates, others don't. AFAIK, it has always been optional. I think the original assumption was that the update_copyright_year script (in the top-level repo) be run periodically to do bulk updates. Unfortunately that script doesn't seem to be run very often now and this strengthens the case to update the dates on a continuous basis. I have not come across the argument that html tidy tasks that don't change the javadoc should not update the copyright date. The general topic probably should move to jdk9-dev and get this decided once and documented in the developer guide.
>>>> 
>>>> I think the key question to ask is: is this the code I can claim Copyright with? To me, format, code style, html tags and other minor changes, these are not code changes one can claim copyright with.
>>>> 
>>>> The date of a Copyright establishes how far back the claim is made. In case where the work is substantially revised, a new Copyright claim is established, which is what the 2nd year is about.
>>>> 
>>>> In this case, esp. for the JAXP API (e.g. javax.xml.datatype), I'd like to see the years maintained because those are the years the API was designed and modified. The "tidy warnings" change did not change the API.
>>>> 
>>>> -Joe
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Alan
>>>> 
>>> 
>> 
> 



Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering 
1 Network Drive 
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen at oracle.com