[7u10] Request for approval: 7166055: Javadoc for WeakHashMap contains misleading advice

Joseph Darcy joe.darcy at oracle.com
Thu Sep 27 18:09:31 PDT 2012 

Hi Sean,

On 9/27/2012 3:46 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
> Thanks for clarifying Joe. I understand that the decision here was 
> quite straight forward here with respect to updating javadocs. 
> However, there are occasions where determining what is and is not 
> allowed in javadoc updates (for an update release) is more 
> complicated. Any suggestions on process there and who the "go to" 
> should be ?

I'm happy to be asked for an opinion if the situation is unclear.

FWIW,  in the Java Language Specification for Java SE 7, the source 
document has labels for each sentance regarding whether or it normative 
or informative/commentary.  In principle, the same sort of mark-up could 
be added to the javadoc of the Java SE APIs to indicate which text is 
part of the specification versus supporting text of some kind.  However, 
I for one wouldn't be the first to sign up for the task of retrofitting 
the existing APIs in this way!

Cheers,

-Joe

>
> Shi Jun - I'll update the bug report when I see the push made to 
> jdk7u-dev.
>
> regards,
> Sean.
>
> On 26/09/2012 01:37, Joe Darcy wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> Catching up on email, I'm responding to this thread with my ccc 
>> chairman hat on.  The ccc is (currently) an Oracle-internal process 
>> which reviews API and other interfaces changes of the JDK.  The ccc 
>> is alluded to in the OpenJDK Developers' Guide [1] and among the 
>> ccc's roles is looking after the general evolution policy of the JDK 
>> [2].
>>
>> For the proposed change for 7166055, I think it is clearly an 
>> *informative* change to the text and *not* a *normative* change to 
>> the specification of WeakHashMap.  The affected paragraph starts with 
>> "Implementation Note" and then goes on to give some usage advice.  
>> Therefor, this is not a specification change that would have 
>> conformance impact and on that matter it is fine for a 7 update release.
>>
>> FWIW, my personal preference would be to have more such 
>> clarifications to the javadoc made between platform releases so that 
>> if the javadoc is regenerated, more helpful text is available.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -Joe
>>
>> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/guide/changePlanning.html
>>
>> [2] 
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~darcy/OpenJdkDevGuide/OpenJdkDevelopersGuide.v0.777.html#general_evolution_policy
>>
>> On 9/18/2012 10:30 AM, Seán Coffey wrote:
>>> I'd have to agree with allowing minor/simple javadoc updates also 
>>> where specification changes are not implied. Even though Oracle 
>>> mightn't always update their javadocs it shouldn't stop others from 
>>> doing so (again for minor/simple/typo updates)
>>>
>>> I've run into arguments in past tough around what sort of javadoc 
>>> updates do and do not imply spec. changes. Let's check with 
>>> conformance team before deciding if this change is ok for an update 
>>> release.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Sean.
>>>
>>> On 18/09/2012 15:51, Andrew Hughes wrote:
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> On 16/09/2012 1:26 AM, Phil Race wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/15/12 3:46 AM, David Holmes wrote:
>>>>>>> Phil,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 15/09/2012 2:57 AM, Phil Race wrote:
>>>>>>>> I really don't think its appropriate to push javadoc changes into
>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>> update release without
>>>>>>>> a really, really compelling reason that I don't see here.
>>>>>>> That is certainly true if they represent a specification change,
>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>> there is no semantic change here this is a simple clarification.
>>>>>> That would just rule it out completely. But we don't even
>>>>>> regenerate
>>>>>> javadoc for
>>>>>> the update releases and we have never randomly backported doc
>>>>>> comments, for
>>>>>> no obvious reason. So my reasoning and position stands.
>>>>> This is OpenJDK, it doesn't matter if "we" don't regenerate javadoc
>>>>> for
>>>>> update releases. And I have long thought that "we" should! I
>>>>> understand
>>>>> the issue with spec changes in update releases but I never understood
>>>>> a
>>>>> policy that would allow errors, misconceptions and mis-guidance to be
>>>>> set in stone instead of correcting them for the benefit of the user
>>>>> community.
>>>>>
>>>> +1
>>>>
>>>> GNU/Linux distributions will make use of this new documentation in 
>>>> new builds,
>>>> even if the copies on the Oracle website aren't updated.  The fact 
>>>> that you don't
>>>> want to jump through whatever hoops are needed to update your own 
>>>> copies should not
>>>> stop people from making minor updates (clarifications, typo fixes) 
>>>> at the OpenJDK level.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know how often jdk7u builds with docs are done at Oracle 
>>>> but there are currently
>>>> a number of warnings being thrown out by the build:
>>>>
>>>> ../../src/share/classes/java/awt/color/ICC_Profile.java:1069: 
>>>> warning - Tag @see: missing '#': "activateDeferredProfile()"
>>>> ../../src/share/classes/java/lang/invoke/MethodHandle.java:392: 
>>>> warning - Tag @link: reference not found: Objects.equals 
>>>> java.util.Objects#equals
>>>> ../../src/share/classes/java/util/Calendar.java:1717: warning - Tag 
>>>> @see: can't find setInternallySetState(int) in java.util.Calendar
>>>> ../../src/share/classes/java/util/Currency.java:685: warning - 
>>>> @throws tag has no arguments.
>>>> ../../src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/nimbus/NimbusStyle.java:854: 
>>>> warning - @return tag has no arguments.
>>>> ../../src/share/classes/javax/swing/plaf/nimbus/NimbusStyle.java:926: 
>>>> warning - @return tag has no arguments.
>>>> /home/andrew/builder/icedtea-jdk7/impsrc/javax/xml/bind/JAXBContext.java:262: 
>>>> warning - Tag @see: reference not found: S 7.4.1 "Named Packages" 
>>>> in Java Language Specification</a>
>>>> 7 warnings
>>>>
>>>> Are we supposed to retain these too?  I can probably provide 
>>>> webrevs to fix these, but there's
>>>> no point if they aren't going to be accepted.
>>>>
>>>>> David
>>>>>
>>>>>> -phil.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> David
>>>>>>> ------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A reminder: Update releases aren't a free-for-all. You need to
>>>>>>>> exercise
>>>>>>>> judgement in what
>>>>>>>> has to go in and what is the case for it. We are up to 7u10 now.
>>>>>>>> We need
>>>>>>>> to be dialling
>>>>>>>> back the rate of change and focusing on JDK 8.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -phil.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/14/2012 12:56 AM, Shi Jun Zhang wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd like to request for approval to push the following change
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>> 7u10.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Changeset in jdk8
>>>>>>>>> http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/237e27c7ddc3
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Webrev
>>>>>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~zhangshj/jdk7u/7166055/webrev.00/
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Reviewed by dholmes, mduigou
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Review thread
>>>>>>>>> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2012-May/010322.html 
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>
>>
>

More information about the jdk7u-dev mailing list