<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Hi Martin,<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2/22/2013 6:06 AM, Martin Buchholz
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+kOe091dsp7QkNPtBPUak-JuD8_LZLTv-xskCA-iSeekX9kww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Joe
Darcy <span dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:joe.darcy@oracle.com" target="_blank">joe.darcy@oracle.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br>
</div>
However, the com.sun.* subpackages are a mix of APIs that are
supported as described above as well as APIs that are not
supported.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I was under the impression that the general rule was that
all of com.sun.* fell under the "jdk supported" umbrella, and
the level of support was the distinction between sun.com.* and
sun.* .</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
Alan has previously replied on the varied supported-ness found in
com.sun.*.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+kOe091dsp7QkNPtBPUak-JuD8_LZLTv-xskCA-iSeekX9kww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>In any case, it would be good if there was a single
canonical place that documented the various levels of support
with subtle distinctions, including java.* vs. javax.*,
endorsed standards, com.sun.* vs. sun.* vs. jdk.*, and
recommendations for where non-Oracle vendor extensions should
go. Is the jdk.Supported annotation itself part of Java SE?
<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No, the jdk.Supported annotation type is part of the JDK (currently
living in the langtools repo):<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/langtools/file/56dfafbb9e1a/src/share/classes/jdk/Supported.java">http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/jdk8/langtools/file/56dfafbb9e1a/src/share/classes/jdk/Supported.java</a><br>
<br>
As you can see, the jdk.Supported type itself has a @jdk.Supported
annotation :-) <br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+kOe091dsp7QkNPtBPUak-JuD8_LZLTv-xskCA-iSeekX9kww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div>Should third-party vendor extensions that are "supported"
for public use by the third-party use jdk.Supported? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
No; as I envision it, the jdk.Supported annotation is only meant to
convey supported-ness in the JDK of parts of the JDK.<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+kOe091dsp7QkNPtBPUak-JuD8_LZLTv-xskCA-iSeekX9kww@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div> What about the X's in hotspot flags and the java tools
command line interfaces?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
The policy around command line interfaces is unchanged; the
interfaces are mostly stable, but the more X's are in a flags name,
the less stable it can be.<br>
<br>
-Joe<br>
</body>
</html>