On 10 Apr 2014, at 08:36, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/2014 22:19, Chris Hegarty wrote: >> >> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8039470/02/webrev/ > That, that is easier to see the changes. > > In URL then it's not clear to me why the javadoc has to admit to a "system > default package". Would it make sense to change this to just say that it > falls back to using a built-in protocol handler if it is available? Yes, possibly. > I also wonder about the wording in ContentHandler. For the sentence starting > with "By default it looks in ..." then I wonder if it would make sense to > re-word this so that it deals with the java.content.handler.pkgs property > first and just say that if this is not defined then it falls back to using a > built-in content handler if it exists. The latter could be placed after the > section on the package structure and would make it clear that this package > structure is only specified for the case that the property is set. I don’t know the original intent of over specifying here. It seems to be a case of the implementation making its way into the specification. Or possibly the intent was to support handlers being added to the bootclasspath. I’m not sure, but either way this whole area is legacy now. Let me take another look and see what can be done. -Chris. > > -Alan.
