Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 9:55 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 20/04/2017 17:47, Mandy Chung wrote: > >> In this case, which module should jdwp-protocol.html spec belong to? Not >> jdk.jdwp.agent then. >> The suggestion of the modular specs layout in the docs bundle may

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

On 20/04/2017 17:47, Mandy Chung wrote: In this case, which module should jdwp-protocol.html spec belong to? Not jdk.jdwp.agent then. The suggestion of the modular specs layout in the docs bundle may not apply. jdwp-protocol.html is the JDWP protocol so it's implemented by both the debugger

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 9:32 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > > > On 20/04/2017 17:26, Mandy Chung wrote: >> JDI and JDWP are not Java SE and no need to handle that. >> > Just a small correction to this. The JDWP spec is Java SE. JDI is course > JDK-specific, as is the

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

> On Apr 20, 2017, at 12:37 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie > wrote: > > On 2017-04-20 01:11, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: >>> >>> On Apr 19, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

On 20/04/2017 17:26, Mandy Chung wrote: JDI and JDWP are not Java SE and no need to handle that. Just a small correction to this. The JDWP spec is Java SE. JDI is course JDK-specific, as is the JDWP transport interface. -Alan

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

On 20/04/2017 08:37, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: : I have two suggestions, but I don't know if either of them is possible: 1) Move the JDWP.java file to jdk.jdwp.agent, and make sure it's properly exported from jdk.jdwp.agent to jdk.jdi. (From my point of view, this seems like the logical thing

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

On 2017-04-20 00:54, Mandy Chung wrote: On Apr 19, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8178038-javadoc-specs/webrev.01 368 JDWP_PROTOCOL := $(SUPPORT_OUTPUTDIR)/gensrc/jdk.jdi/jdwp-protocol.html 369 $(eval $(call SetupCopyFiles,

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 3:54 PM, Mandy Chung wrote: > > >> On Apr 19, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: >> >> WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8178038-javadoc-specs/webrev.01 > > 368 JDWP_PROTOCOL :=

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

> On Apr 19, 2017, at 5:36 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: > > WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8178038-javadoc-specs/webrev.01 368 JDWP_PROTOCOL := $(SUPPORT_OUTPUTDIR)/gensrc/jdk.jdi/jdwp-protocol.html 369 $(eval $(call SetupCopyFiles, COPY_JDWP_PROTOCOL, \ 370 FILES :=

Re: RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

Looks good. Nit: Javadoc.gmk:358-360 only indented 2 spaces for continuation. Same goes for 390-393, but you didn't actually touch those lines. /Erik On 2017-04-19 14:36, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote: This patch will solve three issues that I (unfortunately) filed as separate issues, but that

RFR: JDK-8178038, JDK-8178039, JDK-8178316 Javadoc specs directory

This patch will solve three issues that I (unfortunately) filed as separate issues, but that shares a common solution. The three issues are: JDK-8178038 Copy jdwp-protocol.html to proper location JDK-8178039 Copy jvmti.html to proper location JDK-8178316 Add JVM-MANAGEMENT-MIB.mib to