On 28/05/2019 16:00, Andrew Dinn wrote:
:
Yes, I'll raise one ASAP. Could you clarify what changes I need to
document in the CSR? Here are my current thoughts:
ManagementFactoryHelper/FileChannelImpl
I am assuming the change that exposes the new MXBean needs to be
mentioned somwehere. However, that change doesn't actually affect any
API. It just means that a new bean with a new name appears in the list
of memory beans. I don't see anything which documents those bean names.
Am I missing something? (probably :).
It's not the main event but I think useful to list it in the CSR. You
are right that the existing "direct" and "mapped" aren't documented
anywhere but it wouldn't be too surprising to find tools that rely on them.
com/sun/nio/file/ExtendedMapMode (in jdk.unsupported)
I'm assuming the CSR needs to propose javadoc for the 2 exposed MapMode
values, explaining what these modes are used for and which exceptions
documented in FileChannel.map get thrown for the cases where their use
is unsupported by the JVM or the OS, respectively. Is that correct?
Yes, including the javadoc for the class and the two new map modes. The
javadoc for both modes can reference the UOE thrown by FileChannel.map
when the mode is not supported.
jdk/internal/misc/ExtendedMapMode (in java.base)
Do I need to provide javadoc for the two new MapMode values and include
them in the CSR? I was assuming not.
Right, it's JDK internal so no need to list that.
FileChannelImpl method map
The javadoc in FileChannel lists the new exceptions that might be thrown
by this implementation but does not mention any specifics to say how
they might relate to use of the XXX_SYNC MapModes. Do I need to propose
updates for the FileChannel javadoc in the CSR or am I ok to provide
that detail in the doc for com/sun/nio/file/ExtendedMapMode?
JDK-8221397 had the "enabling" changes so no changes to FileChannel.map,
just the reference from ExtendedMapMode.
Unsafe method writebackMemory
I was assuming Unsafe.writebackMemory is internal to the JDK so does not
need a mention in the CSR. Is that correct?
That's right.
-Alan
