I don't see that this changes the spec. in a way that needs a CSR.
So I'll review it but it is possible that you may be told it can be
withdrawn as unnecessary.
FYI I reviewed this mostly by reading the specdiff so I wasn't looking
directly at source only changes like line length.
I'm not sure how much I like or think some necessary, a few changes such
as from "InputStream" to "input stream" and the like but I don't object
strongly enough to suggest they be amended ..
Minor nit in the change.
In DocFlavor I think "a string" would be better than "the string"
488 * @return the string representing a mime parameter, or {@code null}
if that -phil.
On 08/24/2017 06:02 PM, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
Hello.
CSR is created:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8186753
On 21.08.17 20:03, Sergey Bylokhov wrote:
On 13.08.2017 23:23, Prasanta Sadhukhan wrote:
In that case, will this be required to have 2nd part?
43 * {@link DocFlavor DocFlavor}
There are manyof them in other files too like DocFlavor.java
1206 * stream ({@link java.io.Reader java.io.Reader} Other than
that, it looks ok to me (btw, I have not gone through each and every
file).
The second part is needed(at least we use it) when the class name is
used, but "{@link javax.print.attribute}" is a package.
If there are no more objections from others I'll create a CSR based
on this webrev.
