On 6/24/17 06:40, Daniel D. Daugherty
wrote:
On 6/23/17 10:06 PM, serguei.spit...@oracle.com
wrote:
Please, review this urgent JDK 9 review request for the bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8182844
Webrev:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sspitsyn/webrevs/2017/hotspot/8182844-jvmti-spec-links/
src/share/vm/prims/jvmti.xml
No comments.
src/share/vm/prims/jvmti.xsl
No comments.
Thumbs up!
Thanks a lot, Dam!
Sorry for a typo.
I wanted to say "Dan".
Thanks,
Serguei
If you want this fixed in JDK9, the priority has to be raised
to P1.
I don't think JDK9 should go out the door with broken doc
links.
That gives a bad impression so I would raise this to a P1 and
start the process of requesting approval for the push.
I've made priority P1.
The following P1 doc bug that is in the jdk 9 queue does not have
jdk9-fix-request.
Do we need it for doc bugs?
Thanks,
Serguei
Dan
Summary:
The broken links are:
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/technotes/guides/jpda/architecture.html"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/technotes/guides/jpda/architecture.html">Java
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/invocation.html#getenv"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/invocation.html#getenv">
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/types.html#modified-utf-8-strings"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/types.html#modified-utf-8-strings">
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/design.html"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/design.html">Java
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/functions.html#local-references"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/functions.html#local-references">
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/design.html#java-exceptions"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/design.html#java-exceptions">Java
Exceptions</a>
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/invocation.html#attaching-to-the-vm"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/invocation.html#attaching-to-the-vm">Attaching
to the VM</a>.
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/types.html#type-signatures"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/types.html#type-signatures">JNI
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/index.html"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/index.html">JNI
Specification</a>
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/index.html"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/index.html">JNI
Specification</a>
See <a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/functions.html"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/functions.html">JNI
path to a <a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/technotes/guides/jar/jar.html"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/technotes/guides/jar/jar.html">
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/technotes/guides/jar/jar.html"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/docs/technotes/guides/jar/jar.html">JAR
file</a> to be
<a href=""http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/functions.html#interface-function-table"
title="Follow link" moz-do-not-send="true">http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/jni/functions.html#interface-function-table">
There are two issues:
- 3 links have the incorrect part "docs/technotes/guides"
that now has to be "docs/specs".
- the jvmti.xsl injects the obsolete prefix to every link:
"http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/"
The fix is to replace the "docs/technotes/guides" with
"docs/specs"
and skip injecting the incorrect prefix "http://docs.oracle.com/javase/9/".
So that all links become relative to the location of the
jvmti.html.
Also, it can be too late to push this at this time.
Sorry that I've discovered this so late.
One question is if the priority of this bug has to be raised
to P1,
or maybe this bug needs to be deferred to 9u.
Thanks,
Serguei
|
