RFR (S): 8241947: Minor comment fixes for system property handling

Langer, Christoph christoph.langer at sap.com
Tue Mar 31 18:57:41 UTC 2020

Hi Mandy,

this is a good suggestion. The listing of system properties at the props field declaration seems somewhat redundant, given that it already exists more exactly and with API normativity in the doc of System::getProperties().

So what do you think of this version: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8241947.1/ ?


From: Mandy Chung <mandy.chung at oracle.com>
Sent: Dienstag, 31. März 2020 19:34
To: Langer, Christoph <christoph.langer at sap.com>; core-libs-dev at openjdk.java.net
Cc: build-dev <build-dev at openjdk.java.net>
Subject: Re: RFR (S): 8241947: Minor comment fixes for system property handling

On 3/31/20 7:56 AM, Langer, Christoph wrote:


please review a small fix that updates two comments.

The first one, in make/autoconf/spec.gmk.in, is probably quite old. It talks about handling of a property "vm.vendor" in VersionProps.java.template. However, there is no property "vm.vendor", it must rather be "java.vendor". I stumbled over that when looking at the change of JDK-4947890 (Minimize JNI upcalls in system-properties initialization).

The second one is the code comment attached to "private static Properties props;" in java.lang.System. After JDK-8197927 (Allow the system property `java.vendor.version` to be undefined), "java.vendor.version" can be undefined, so this should be reflected in the comment. I also took the liberty to remove an unneeded import statement.

Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8241947

Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~clanger/webrevs/8241947.0/

I wonder if we still want to keep this block of comments listing a subset of system properties.  Anyway the minor comment looks okay.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list