> On May 16, 2017, at 11:14 AM, Naoto Sato <naoto.s...@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Please review the changes to the following issue:
>
> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8180375
>
> The proposed fix is located at:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~naoto/8180375/webrev.00/
>
> This is to change the package name of the resource bundle provider to a
> different one, by appending ".spi" to the original package name. This change
> effectively avoids possible split package issue if resource bundles are
> provided from other named modules.
This would ease migration in particular when the provider modules are loaded in
a layer defined to multiple loader. Existing resource bundles can be kept in
the same package.
247 * The service type is designated by {@code package name + ".spi." +
simple name +"Provider"}. For
It may be clearer to say {@code <package name> + “.spi.” + <simple name> +
“Provider”}.
test/java/util/ResourceBundle/modules/appbasic/src/test/jdk/test/resources/spi/MyResourcesProviderImpl.java
test/java/util/ResourceBundle/modules/appbasic2/src/test/jdk/test/resources/spi/MyResourcesProviderImpl.java
- they are provider implmentation classes. They don’t need to be renamed.
If you want to rename them, maybe better to move them to
jdk.test.resources.internal package.
test/java/util/ResourceBundle/modules/layer/src/Main.java
test/java/util/ResourceBundle/modules/layer/src/m1/p/Main.java
Nit: several long lines that can be wrapped.
Otherwise looks fine.
Mandy
