[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openjdk-serviceability-dev
Subject:    RE: RFR : JDK-8165579 - Add missing javadoc information for deprecated API's.
From:       Amit Sapre <amit.sapre () oracle ! com>
Date:       2016-09-08 10:07:54
Message-ID: 041b8847-c8f7-47ad-9a3f-63d4ba96ffb7 () default
[Download RAW message or body]

Thanks David & Daniel

Amit

-----Original Message-----
From: David Holmes 
Sent: Thursday, September 08, 2016 3:21 PM
To: Amit Sapre; Stuart Marks; Daniel Fuchs; serviceability-dev
Subject: Re: RFR : JDK-8165579 - Add missing javadoc information for deprecated \
API's.

On 8/09/2016 6:55 PM, Amit Sapre wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> All updated changes are part of this webrev 
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sballal/sponsorship/8165579/webrev.01/

Looks good.

Thanks,
David

> Thanks,
> Amit
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stuart Marks
> Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 11:02 PM
> To: Amit Sapre
> Cc: Daniel Fuchs; David Holmes; serviceability-dev
> Subject: Re: RFR : JDK-8165579 - Add missing javadoc information for deprecated \
> API's. 
> Well, it's really up to you guys (serviceability team) regarding whether or not you \
> want to remove APIs. In this case, though, it seems there is no plan to remove \
> them, at least not at present, and so the value of forRemoval should be false. 
> Since false is the default value of forRemoval, the preferred style is 
> simply to omit it from the annotation. Thus
> 
> @Deprecated(since="1.5")
> 
> should be sufficient.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> s'marks
> 
> On 9/7/16 3:30 AM, Amit Sapre wrote:
> > Daniel & David,
> > There is no item/plan in roadmap to remove these deprecated methods. These \
> > methods would remain for reasons which you just described. It probably makes \
> > sense to remove "forRemoval=true" flag. Will wait to hear from Stuart as well. \
> > Amit 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Daniel Fuchs
> > Sent: Wednesday, September 07, 2016 3:46 PM
> > To: David Holmes; Amit Sapre; serviceability-dev; Stuart Marks
> > Subject: Re: RFR : JDK-8165579 - Add missing javadoc information for deprecated \
> > API's. 
> > Hi Amit,
> > 
> > On 07/09/16 10:34, David Holmes wrote:
> > > Hi Amit,
> > > 
> > > On 7/09/2016 7:10 PM, Amit Sapre wrote:
> > > > Hello,
> > > > 
> > > > Please review the changes for missing javadoc updates for deprecated API.
> > > > 
> > > > Bug Id : https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8165579
> > > > 
> > > > Webrev :
> > > > http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sballal/sponsorship/8165579/webrev.00/
> > > 
> > > Not sure about the "forRemoval=true" part. Given these have been 
> > > deprecated since 1.5 are we likely to ever actually remove them?
> > 
> > I agree with David. I wouldn't attempt to remove these methods unless there is a \
> > strong case for it (e.g. if it was causing some module dependency issue) - \
> > because of the potential backward compatibility issues it may generate. 
> > Nobody should actually be calling these methods, but there is certainly code out \
> > there that implements them with @Override (simply because they're declared in the \
> > interface) and tests (JCK etc...) that probably verifies that they do throw an \
> > exception... 
> > Maybe Stuart (in copy) will be able to advise :-)
> > 
> > best regards,
> > 
> > -- daniel
> > 
> > > Otherwise looks fine - and thanks for fast turnaround on this. My 
> > > apologies for overlooking it when the methods were made "default".
> > > 
> > > Thanks,
> > > David
> > > 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > 
> > > > Amit
> > > > 
> > 


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]