<Sound Dev> [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.
>
> ----- danrollo at 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.bylokhov at 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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/sound-dev/attachments/20170705/4c5a6953/attachment-0001.html>