Re: RFR 8161965 -> Fwd: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

MY suggestions on 2 security-related modules: java.security.jgss: The {@code java.security.jgss} module defines and exports the interfaces and classes related to the Java binding of the Generic Security Services Application Program Interface (GSS-API). This module also includes GSS-API mechan

Re: RFR 8161965 -> Fwd: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

Hi all, Take 2 on the module description javadocs. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/8161965 the xxx.01 include the updated changes. Alan, I tried to incorporate your suggested changes. Hopefully we are getting closer. Best Lance > On Jul 21, 2

Re: RFR 8161965 -> Fwd: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 1:32 PM, Brian Burkhalter > wrote: > > And the java.desktop description was already checked in so it should be > examined for consistency I suppose. OK, will take a look > > Brian > > On Jul 21, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > >> I think Jon Gibbons is worki

Re: RFR 8161965 -> Fwd: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

> On Jul 21, 2016, at 1:03 PM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 21/07/2016 17:37, Lance Andersen wrote: > >> I took a stab at the javadoc descriptions for the modules modeled after what >> we discussed for the java.prefs module. >> >> The webrev can be found at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/81

Re: RFR 8161965 -> Fwd: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

And the java.desktop description was already checked in so it should be examined for consistency I suppose. Brian On Jul 21, 2016, at 10:03 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > I think Jon Gibbons is working on text for java.compiler and jdk.compiler so > you might be able to drop java.compiler from you

Re: RFR 8161965 -> Fwd: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

On 21/07/2016 17:37, Lance Andersen wrote: I took a stab at the javadoc descriptions for the modules modeled after what we discussed for the java.prefs module. The webrev can be found at http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~lancea/8161965/ It's good to do

RFR 8161965 -> Fwd: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

his is really not a spec change? Best Lance > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Brian Burkhalter > Subject: Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for > java.prefs module > Date: July 19, 2016 at 11:06:48 AM EDT > To: Core-Libs-Dev > > It seems to

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 2:59 PM, Lance Andersen wrote: > > OK, now I am confused :-) > > Earlier in the thread, it was raised that it would be more efficient to have > 1 bug and 1 owner. Your reply seemed to agree to that, but now it looks like > you are rethinking this? > > The module descri

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

OK, now I am confused :-) Earlier in the thread, it was raised that it would be more efficient to have 1 bug and 1 owner. Your reply seemed to agree to that, but now it looks like you are rethinking this? The module descriptions seemed to all be something similar to The {@code java.X

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

I was originally assuming that different engineers would be responsible for providing descriptions for different modules … if to merge all that into one bug, a single person will either have to come up with everything himself/herself or go around and ask for all the description in the e-mail. S

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

Brian and I exchanged email off-line. I will take ownership of this and grab the existing bugs Wed. Best Lance > On Jul 19, 2016, at 11:31 AM, Brian Burkhalter > wrote: > > On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:20 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline > wrote: > >>> On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:20 AM, Alexandre (Shura) Iline wrote: >> On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: >> >> I agree, I think we should close the bulk of these issues and replace with >> one issue. >> >> Shura - are you okay if we close all the issues that you created and replace >

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

> On Jul 19, 2016, at 8:19 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 19/07/2016 16:06, Brian Burkhalter wrote: > >> It seems to me it would be less work overall if there were only one single >> issue to subsume adding the verbiage for all modules. There is only one >> single line of verbiage for each su

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

On 19/07/2016 16:06, Brian Burkhalter wrote: It seems to me it would be less work overall if there were only one single issue to subsume adding the verbiage for all modules. There is only one single line of verbiage for each such issue and having so many reviews go around is a lot of noise. T

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

It seems to me it would be less work overall if there were only one single issue to subsume adding the verbiage for all modules. There is only one single line of verbiage for each such issue and having so many reviews go around is a lot of noise. Then also if a CCC were required there would be o

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

ok. I would omit the 'of the Java SE platform' as being self referential and unnecessary. (and API should be singular) $.02, Roger On 7/18/2016 8:45 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: Please review at your convenience. Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161402 Patch: [1] Thanks,

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

I know I have to do the same for a few modules. Do you have a preference on the wording so it consistent to help reduce follow on changes: The {@code java.XXX} module defines and exports the XXX API Is that the preferred direction? > On Jul 19, 2016, at 3:12 AM, Alan Bateman wrote: > > On 1

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

On 19/07/2016 02:57, joe darcy wrote: Hi Brian, As as grammatical comment, I might start with "The {@code java.prefs} module defines ...", but otherwise, the change looks fine. Also I think it's API rather than "APIs". At some point then we need to do a pass over all the javadoc comments in

Re: JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

Hi Brian, As as grammatical comment, I might start with "The {@code java.prefs} module defines ...", but otherwise, the change looks fine. Thanks, -Joe On 7/18/2016 5:45 PM, Brian Burkhalter wrote: Please review at your convenience. Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161402

JDK 9 RFR of 8161402: Provide a javadoc description for java.prefs module

Please review at your convenience. Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8161402 Patch: [1] Thanks, Brian [1] diff --- a/src/java.prefs/share/classes/module-info.java +++ b/src/java.prefs/share/classes/module-info.java @@ -23,6 +23,10 @@ * questions. */ +/** + * java.prefs de