<Swing Dev> [12] JDK-8213516: jck test api/javax_accessibility/AccessibleState/fields.html fails intermittent

[Philip Race]

No, we can't remove it in 13 unless we deprecate for removal in 12 and 
we are
too late for that and in any case 6 months is very short.
This is not important enough to rush such a thing.
Removal before the next LTS should suffiice.

We can ask the JCK team as discussed but that does not mean we then
don't need to fix the problem that caused this, even if we can defer it 
to 13.
Also "asking" does not guarantee approval, so a fix still needs to be in 
the works.

-phil.

On 12/20/18, 8:49 PM, Shashidhara Veerabhadraiah wrote:
> Hi Phil\Sergey, As I understand from this, we should remove the AccessibleResourceBundle from JDK in 13(By using @Deprecated(forRemoval = true)) and meanwhile ask the JCK team to remove this test from the test suite?
>
> Should the forremoval needs to be done now or later?
>
> Thanks and regards,
> Shashi
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Race
> Sent: Friday, December 21, 2018 6:54 AM
> To: Sergey Bylokhov<sergey.bylokhov at oracle.com>
> Cc: Shashidhara Veerabhadraiah<shashidhara.veerabhadraiah at oracle.com>; swing-dev at openjdk.java.net; Dmitry Bessonov<dmitry.bessonov at oracle.com>; Krishna Addepalli<krishna.addepalli at oracle.com>
> Subject: Re:<Swing Dev>  [12] JDK-8213516: jck test api/javax_accessibility/AccessibleState/fields.html fails intermittent
>
>
>
> On 12/20/18, 4:10 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>> On 20/12/2018 15:44, Phil Race wrote:
>>> The peers were not part of the SE specification.
>>> This class is, it just became obsolete so has been deprecated which
>>> on its own has no spec impact. So I would not call it a similar
>>> situation.
>> No it was not part of the spec(and the deprecation notion is unrelated).
>> The notion that it should not be used and internal use only, is there
>> from the moment the class was moved to the "javax.accessibility"
>> package in 1998.
> It is a public class in a public package and so forth.
> But you can argue it out with JCK, as it is a waste of time to discuss it further here.
>
> -phil.
>>> As I pointed out in what might have been an off-list comment, we can
>>> consider the deprecation for removal route, but that wouldn't solve
>>> the problem today.
>>>
>>> But excluding the test is a possible option for 12, so we could defer
>>> fixing the underlying regression until 13.
>>>
>>> -phil.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 12/20/18 3:33 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>> On 20/12/2018 15:25, Phil Race wrote:
>>>>> On 12/20/18 2:51 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
>>>>>> I have checked the test which uses AccessibleResourceBundle and I
>>>>>> have two comments:
>>>>>>   - This test should not be a part of jck since it is not a part of
>>>>>> public specification.
>>>>> What isn't ? Do you mean the class ?
>>>> I meant the class and the test which use it. BTW this class is a
>>>> good candidate for "removal=true"
>>>>
>>>>> If you mean the comment that it is not supposed to be called by
>>>>> external applications, then yes, as I already pointed out,  but the
>>>>> class does appear in the spec.
>>>> It is there because we generate the javadoc for all public classes,
>>>> but the text for this class clearly state that it should not be
>>>> used. This situation is similar to the API which uses peers.
>>>>
>>