Uploaded image for project: 'JDK'
  1. JDK
  2. JDK-6894719

(launcher)The option -no-jre-restrict-search is expected when -jre-no-restrict-search is documented.

    Details

    • Type: Bug
    • Status: Closed
    • Priority: P3
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 7
    • Fix Version/s: 7
    • Component/s: tools
    • Subcomponent:
    • Resolved In Build:
      b116
    • CPU:
      x86
    • OS:
      generic
    • Verification:
      Verified

      Description

      The option is documented as -jre-no-restrict-search however parser expects -no-jre-restrict-search.

      It looks like no one is used this option really. Does it really needed?

      ================== java output ======================
      " -jre-restrict-search | -jre-no-restrict-search\n"
      " include/exclude user private JREs in the version search\n"
      =========== java.c ================
         while ((arg = *argv) != 0 && *arg == '-') {
              if (strncmp(arg, "-version:", 9) == 0) {
                  version = arg + 9;
              } else if (strcmp(arg, "-jre-restrict-search") == 0) {
                  restrict_search = 1;
              } else if (strcmp(arg, "-no-jre-restrict-search") == 0) {
                  restrict_search = 0;
              } else {

        Activity

        Hide
        ksrini Kumar Srinivasan added a comment -
        BT2:EVALUATION

        According to the ccc, it should be jre-restrict-search/ -jre-no-restrict-search.
        This needs to be fixed, regardless of users use it or not.
        I think it is best to file a ccc and change the documentation and leave
        the implementation as-is, for the following two reasons:
        a. to keep backward compatibility
        b. no-jre-restrict-search is more meaningful and follows the CLIP
           specification/convention, ie. a prefixed "no" negates the option.
        Show
        ksrini Kumar Srinivasan added a comment - BT2:EVALUATION According to the ccc, it should be jre-restrict-search/ -jre-no-restrict-search. This needs to be fixed, regardless of users use it or not. I think it is best to file a ccc and change the documentation and leave the implementation as-is, for the following two reasons: a. to keep backward compatibility b. no-jre-restrict-search is more meaningful and follows the CLIP    specification/convention, ie. a prefixed "no" negates the option.

          People

          • Assignee:
            ksrini Kumar Srinivasan
            Reporter:
            lmesnik Leonid Mesnik
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:
              Imported:
              Indexed: