RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
6 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address

Langer, Christoph

Hi,

 

please review this small fix.

 

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164057

Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8164057.0/

 

The root cause of the wrong “@since” tags probably is that the classes Inet[46]Address had been created as copy of InetAddress. InetAddress itself obviously exists since 1.0 and methods have been added over time. The copying of InetAddress towards Inet[46]Adress has been done for Java 1.4 and hence all Javadoc that was tagged @since <1.4 is not correct for the new classes.

 

I suggest to remove all @since <= 1.4 since the classes themselves are annotated “@since 1.4” which would imply all unannotated methods exist from 1.4 onwards. Alternatively we could a) remove only occurences of @since < 1.4 or b) change all @since < 1.4 to @since 1.4.

 

Best regards

Christoph

 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address

Volker Simonis
Hi Christoph,

this change looks reasonable but I wonder if this requires one of
these dubious CCC requests/approvals?
Maybe one of the process experts can answer :)

Regards,
Volker


On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 9:38 AM, Langer, Christoph
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
>
>
> please review this small fix.
>
>
>
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164057
>
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8164057.0/
>
>
>
> The root cause of the wrong “@since” tags probably is that the classes
> Inet[46]Address had been created as copy of InetAddress. InetAddress itself
> obviously exists since 1.0 and methods have been added over time. The
> copying of InetAddress towards Inet[46]Adress has been done for Java 1.4 and
> hence all Javadoc that was tagged @since <1.4 is not correct for the new
> classes.
>
>
>
> I suggest to remove all @since <= 1.4 since the classes themselves are
> annotated “@since 1.4” which would imply all unannotated methods exist from
> 1.4 onwards. Alternatively we could a) remove only occurences of @since <
> 1.4 or b) change all @since < 1.4 to @since 1.4.
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Christoph
>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address

Chris Hegarty
In reply to this post by Langer, Christoph
Hi Christoph,

> On 7 Dec 2016, at 08:38, Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>  
> please review this small fix.
>  
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164057
> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8164057.0/
>  
> The root cause of the wrong “@since” tags probably is that the classes Inet[46]Address had been created as copy of InetAddress. InetAddress itself obviously exists since 1.0 and methods have been added over time. The copying of InetAddress towards Inet[46]Adress has been done for Java 1.4 and hence all Javadoc that was tagged @since <1.4 is not correct for the new classes.

I suspect that you’re right. This looks like an oversight during the addition of
these classes in 1.4.

> I suggest to remove all @since <= 1.4 since the classes themselves are annotated “@since 1.4” which would imply all unannotated methods exist from 1.4 onwards. Alternatively we could a) remove only occurences of @since < 1.4 or b) change all @since < 1.4 to @since 1.4.

I think I favour the approach that you have taken in the webrev, remove all
occurrences of @since <= 1.4. This can be considered as a Review, from me.

I will shepherd this through the CCC process and let you know when it is
complete, or if any issues arise.

-Chris.


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address

Langer, Christoph
Hi Chris,

Ok, thanks. Let me know when ccc is processed and it can be pushed.

Best regards
Christoph

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 11:52
> To: Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address
>
> Hi Christoph,
>
> > On 7 Dec 2016, at 08:38, Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > please review this small fix.
> >
> > Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164057
> > Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8164057.0/
> >
> > The root cause of the wrong “@since” tags probably is that the classes
> Inet[46]Address had been created as copy of InetAddress. InetAddress itself
> obviously exists since 1.0 and methods have been added over time. The copying
> of InetAddress towards Inet[46]Adress has been done for Java 1.4 and hence all
> Javadoc that was tagged @since <1.4 is not correct for the new classes.
>
> I suspect that you’re right. This looks like an oversight during the addition of
> these classes in 1.4.
>
> > I suggest to remove all @since <= 1.4 since the classes themselves are
> annotated “@since 1.4” which would imply all unannotated methods exist from
> 1.4 onwards. Alternatively we could a) remove only occurences of @since < 1.4
> or b) change all @since < 1.4 to @since 1.4.
>
> I think I favour the approach that you have taken in the webrev, remove all
> occurrences of @since <= 1.4. This can be considered as a Review, from me.
>
> I will shepherd this through the CCC process and let you know when it is
> complete, or if any issues arise.
>
> -Chris.
>

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address

Chris Hegarty

On 07/12/16 13:05, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> Hi Chris,
>
> Ok, thanks. Let me know when ccc is processed and it can be pushed.

You have a green light to push these changes.

-Chris.


> Best regards
> Christoph
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:[hidden email]]
>> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 11:52
>> To: Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]>
>> Cc: [hidden email]
>> Subject: Re: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address
>>
>> Hi Christoph,
>>
>>> On 7 Dec 2016, at 08:38, Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> please review this small fix.
>>>
>>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164057
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8164057.0/
>>>
>>> The root cause of the wrong “@since” tags probably is that the classes
>> Inet[46]Address had been created as copy of InetAddress. InetAddress itself
>> obviously exists since 1.0 and methods have been added over time. The copying
>> of InetAddress towards Inet[46]Adress has been done for Java 1.4 and hence all
>> Javadoc that was tagged @since <1.4 is not correct for the new classes.
>>
>> I suspect that you’re right. This looks like an oversight during the addition of
>> these classes in 1.4.
>>
>>> I suggest to remove all @since <= 1.4 since the classes themselves are
>> annotated “@since 1.4” which would imply all unannotated methods exist from
>> 1.4 onwards. Alternatively we could a) remove only occurences of @since < 1.4
>> or b) change all @since < 1.4 to @since 1.4.
>>
>> I think I favour the approach that you have taken in the webrev, remove all
>> occurrences of @since <= 1.4. This can be considered as a Review, from me.
>>
>> I will shepherd this through the CCC process and let you know when it is
>> complete, or if any issues arise.
>>
>> -Chris.
>>
>
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

RE: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address

Langer, Christoph
Done: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/jdk/rev/03d7bdec12fe


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> Sent: Montag, 12. Dezember 2016 15:30
> To: Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]>
> Cc: [hidden email]; Volker Simonis <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address
>
>
> On 07/12/16 13:05, Langer, Christoph wrote:
> > Hi Chris,
> >
> > Ok, thanks. Let me know when ccc is processed and it can be pushed.
>
> You have a green light to push these changes.
>
> -Chris.
>
>
> > Best regards
> > Christoph
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chris Hegarty [mailto:[hidden email]]
> >> Sent: Mittwoch, 7. Dezember 2016 11:52
> >> To: Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]>
> >> Cc: [hidden email]
> >> Subject: Re: RFR (S): 8164057: Fix @since for java.net.Inet[46]Address
> >>
> >> Hi Christoph,
> >>
> >>> On 7 Dec 2016, at 08:38, Langer, Christoph <[hidden email]>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi,
> >>>
> >>> please review this small fix.
> >>>
> >>> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8164057
> >>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8164057.0/
> >>>
> >>> The root cause of the wrong “@since” tags probably is that the classes
> >> Inet[46]Address had been created as copy of InetAddress. InetAddress itself
> >> obviously exists since 1.0 and methods have been added over time. The
> copying
> >> of InetAddress towards Inet[46]Adress has been done for Java 1.4 and hence
> all
> >> Javadoc that was tagged @since <1.4 is not correct for the new classes.
> >>
> >> I suspect that you’re right. This looks like an oversight during the addition of
> >> these classes in 1.4.
> >>
> >>> I suggest to remove all @since <= 1.4 since the classes themselves are
> >> annotated “@since 1.4” which would imply all unannotated methods exist
> from
> >> 1.4 onwards. Alternatively we could a) remove only occurences of @since <
> 1.4
> >> or b) change all @since < 1.4 to @since 1.4.
> >>
> >> I think I favour the approach that you have taken in the webrev, remove all
> >> occurrences of @since <= 1.4. This can be considered as a Review, from me.
> >>
> >> I will shepherd this through the CCC process and let you know when it is
> >> complete, or if any issues arise.
> >>
> >> -Chris.
> >>
> >