Bug ID: JDK-4933739 java.util.logging.XMLFormatter.getHead needs clarification

Versions (Unresolved/Resolved/Fixed)

The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.

Other
tbdUnresolved

Name: sdR10048			Date: 10/07/2003


Filed By      : SPB JCK team (###@###.###)
JDK           : java full version "1.5.0-beta-b22"


Specification excerpt:
======================
--------- J2SE API spec v.1.5 ---------
...
public String getHead(Handler h)
Return the header string for a set of XML formatted records. 

Overrides:
getHead in class Formatter
Parameters:
h - The target handler (can be null) 
Returns:
header string


...
---------- end-of-excerpt ---------------

Problem description
===================
That would be nice if the javadoc for getHead(Handler)
will say more about the output header string:

1) is it the document level header string "<?xml ...?><log>"
   or it is limited with "<log>" tag only

2) what is the relation between the output string and the input handler
   (encoding etc)

3) what is the expected xml header encoding in case input handler == null

4) what is the expected xml version in the output xml header

======================================================================

EVALUATION This bug requires the spec update, so a CCC is needed too. Please, see evaluation comments above.

04-02-2006

EVALUATION javadoc for getHead(Handler) should say more about the output header string format. ###@###.### 2003-10-09 These issues have already been addressed in a separate bug, 4949602. Engineering tells me that the javadoc update for that bug already addresses the issue. As for the the 4 points raised in this report, the other fix covers them as follows: 1) I would say is up to the implementation, so it can be either. We are done 2) Up to the implementation , so yes we done 3) covered, done 4) I put valid XML, the version is again down to the implementation but to be valid needs to conform to XML 1.0 or greater. We are done with 'valid xml' ###@###.### 2003-11-24 ======================================================================= Reopened because following issues have not been resolved: 1) We would say that this is not convenient for the end developers. Thus the developer first should search the <?xml.. ?> substring in the getHead() output and if there is no such string he should write such a string by himself. It seems to be a too big difference between implementations. Anyway if this is implementation dependent - it should be specified. Thus this issue is not actually a dup of 4949602 since not covered by it. 2) If it is up to implementation - it should be specified. 4) If the output xml should be 1.0 or greater then it should be documented. It is not covered by 4949602 as well. Since we are talking about changing the spec - it should be passed thru the CCC cycle. ###@###.### 2004-03-30

30-03-2004