JDK-8011653: Upgrade to JAXP 1.5

huizhe wang huizhe.wang at oracle.com
Fri May 3 08:01:23 UTC 2013

Hi Alan, Lance,

This is an update that reflects the spec change, and also fixes for 
JDK-8013232 and JDK-8013484.

Please review:


On 4/18/2013 2:43 AM, huizhe wang wrote:
> On 4/15/2013 2:22 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
>> On 15/04/2013 08:48, Joe Wang wrote:
>>> :
>>>> For the new properties then it specifies that a "a runtime 
>>>> exception" will be thrown. Can this be more specific?
>>> They can't be in XMLConstants, but they are in the specific 
>>> Factories. The properties may be supported by factories that may 
>>> throw different exceptions.
>> I think it would be help if this were expanded to something like "a 
>> runtime exception that is specific to the context is thrown" and give 
>> an example so that it's clear what it saying.
> Absolutely!  While doing so, I realized that I should have been even 
> more specific in what throws which exception. I've added more details 
> to the javadoc in Factories and SAXParser.
>>> Webrevs updated:
>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~joehw/jdk8/8011653/webrev/
>> This looks much better. For now, I've stayed focused on the 
>> javadoc/spec for now as we have to get that right.
>> The wording "\"jar\" plus the scheme portion" suggests it matches 
>> "jar" exactly and maybe this could be clearer because this is also 
>> case insensitive.
> Added 'including the keyword "jar"' in Protocols are case-insensitive.
>> @since on the new properties 1.7. I don't know if this should have 
>> 1.8 or JAXP 1.5.
> I think we'll have approval to integrate JAXP 1.5 into JDK7. So it's 
> 1.7.  In JAXP javadocs, JDK versions have been used for @since.
>> The intending of the <ul> and <li> looks a bit odd when the 
>> paragraphs aren't indented. This doesn't impact the generated javadoc 
>> of course, just looks odd in the source code.
> It was indeed intended since the section within <ul> and <li> applies 
> to the new property only. I've added tabs to make it easier to read.
>> Otherwise I think the javadoc looks okay to me.
> Thanks,
> Joe
>> -Alan

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list