On Fri, 29 Apr 2022 02:12:19 GMT, Iris Clark <i...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Joe Darcy has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional
>> commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Change punctuation from review feedback.
>
> src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/System.java line 743:
>
>> 741: * have the value {@code "1"}; after a second maintenance
>> 742: * release, this property will have the value {@code "2"},
>> 743: * and so on.
>
> There should be no requirement that values be allocated sequentially. In
> other words, if JCP MR <x> does not require an RI, then it should not be
> surprising if there is no JDK build with maintenance version <x>. As an
> example, JSR 337 MR 1 and MR 2 both used the same RI. If this system
> property had existed during development of MR 1, it would return "1". Since
> no RI was submitted for MR 2, a build returning "2" should never exist. MR 3
> did update the RI, so it would return "3".
@irisclark does raise an interesting point: If, say, MR 2 doesn’t require a
change to the RI then the MR 1 RI is also the MR 2 RI, but its
`java.specification.maintenance.version` property will report that it’s the MR
1 RI.
One way to fix this would be to require an RI update with every MR just to
update this property, even if no other code in the RI changes — but we prefer
to avoid doing RI builds unnecessarily.
Another way to fix it would be to finesse the specification of this property,
perhaps:
* <tr><th scope="row">{@systemProperty
java.specification.maintenance.version}</th>
* <td>Java Runtime Environment specification maintenance version,
which may
* be interpreted as a non-zero integer. If defined, the value of
this
* property is the identifying number of the most recent <a
* href="https://jcp.org/en/procedures/jcp2#3.6.4";>specification
* maintenance release</a> that required a change to the runtime</a>
* <em>(optional)</em>.
* </td></tr>
-------------
PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8437
