RFR: 8009428 and 8009429 - Profile related fixes and clean ups

Alan Bateman Alan.Bateman at oracle.com
Fri Mar 8 12:00:49 UTC 2013

On 08/03/2013 11:28, David Holmes wrote:
> Now I'm a little concerned. I had not considered whether javac/javadoc 
> considered these to be complete lists. They have to know how to 
> combine the includes at a low-level with the excludes of a 
> higher-level - and potentially vice-versa.
I think javac should be okay, and you can easily test this by trying to 
compile with "javac -profile compact<N> ..." on a test that references 
types in one of these sub-packages. There are tests in the langtools 
repo for this too and it would be good to check ProfileOptionTest to see 
if need more sub-tests to cover a few sample types from these sub-packages.

So I think the issue will be just the docs build and you can quickly 
check that too. To date we've only seen it with java.time because that 
was the one case where only the top-most API package was listed. I'm 
pretty sure the issue is in the standard doclet, in which case I think 
pushing your changes are okay. The only complication is that there is 
another issue with the generated docs and that is default view is the 
Profiles view so it is very confusing until you hit the "All Packages" link.


More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list