JDK 8 code review request for 7091682 "Move sun.misc.FpUtils code into java.lang.Math"

joe.darcy at oracle.com joe.darcy at oracle.com
Tue Sep 27 03:11:50 UTC 2011

Hi Ulf.

On 9/23/2011 2:14 AM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
> Am 23.09.2011 01:29, schrieb Joe Darcy:
>> On 9/22/2011 2:07 PM, Ulf Zibis wrote:
>>> Am 22.09.2011 19:18, schrieb Ulf Zibis:
>>>> I'm wondering why you don't have moved concerning documentation 
>>>> from sun.misc.* to java.lang.(Strict)Math. E.G.: The comment on the 
>>>> scalb operations:
>>>> /*
>>>>  * The scalb operation should be reasonable ...
>>>>  */
>>>> To save some source code footprint and allow better overview, I 
>>>> suggest to erase all javadoc of the moved methods except the 
>>>> deprecated note.
>>> BTW: Is it valid use annotation with argument like: @Deprecated("Use 
>>> Math.scalb.")
>>> instead redundant javadoc tag?
>> No; the @Deprecated annotation with an informative @deprecated 
>> javadoc tag describing what to do instead is the proper style.
>> The @Deprecated annotation type was intentionally defined as marker 
>> annotation without a string value.
> OK, thanks Joe.
> Because I became inclined to file a RFE, is there a source known, 
> where I can read about this intention?

This RFE was filed and subsequently closed some time ago; the rationale 
is discussed in the bug evaluation:

5105736 "(anno) Deprecated annotation needs way to add comment and/or 
replacement api (value)"

> 2. What's about moving the sun.misc.* comments?

Next time I'm going something else which touches sun.misc.FpUtils, I 
might adjust the comments; I don't see that as important enough to do on 
its own since the comments should only be seen by people browsing the 
sources directly.



More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list