<Sound Dev> [9] Review Request: 8181566 JavaSound javadoc clarification

[Dan Rollo]

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
>