Latest changes: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8039470/03/specdiff/java/net/package-summary.html http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~chegar/8039470/03/webrev/
-Chris. On 10 Apr 2014, at 08:49, Chris Hegarty <chris.hega...@oracle.com> wrote: > > 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. >
