8358526: Clarify behavior of java.awt.HeadlessException constructed with no-args

[prrace]

Clarify the behaviour of new HeadlessException().getMessage()
The spec. is updated to be clear that empty means null, not an empty string.

---

Progress

• Change must be properly reviewed (1 review required, with at least 1 Reviewer)
• Change must not contain extraneous whitespace
• Commit message must refer to an issue
• Change requires CSR request JDK-8359951 to be approved

Issues

• JDK-8358526: Clarify behavior of java.awt.HeadlessException constructed with no-args (Bug - P2)
• JDK-8359951: Clarify behavior of java.awt.HeadlessException constructed with no-args (CSR)

Reviewers

• Alexey Ivanov (@aivanov-jdk - Reviewer)

Reviewing

Using git

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25881/head:pull/25881
$ git checkout pull/25881

Update a local copy of the PR:
$ git checkout pull/25881
$ git pull https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/25881/head

Using Skara CLI tools

Checkout this PR locally:
$ git pr checkout 25881

View PR using the GUI difftool:
$ git pr show -t 25881

Using diff file

Download this PR as a diff file:
https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/25881.diff

Using Webrev

Link to Webrev Comment

[prrace]

/csr

[bridgekeeper]

👋 Welcome back prr! A progress list of the required criteria for merging this PR into master will be added to the body of your pull request. There are additional pull request commands available for use with this pull request.

[openjdk]

❗ This change is not yet ready to be integrated.
See the Progress checklist in the description for automated requirements.

[openjdk]

@prrace an approved CSR request is already required for this pull request.

[openjdk]

@prrace The following label will be automatically applied to this pull request:

• client

When this pull request is ready to be reviewed, an "RFR" email will be sent to the corresponding mailing list. If you would like to change these labels, use the /label pull request command.

[mlbridge]

Webrevs

• 00: Full (b1673a47)

[prrace]

CSR to be reviewed https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8359951

[aivanov-jdk]

Should each constructor specify how the message returned by getMessage is constructed instead of directing to the specification of getMessage for details?

[aivanov-jdk]

This doesn't align, the following text has to be modified too.

The first sentence of the second paragraph, “For such {@code HeadlessException} the default headless error message may be auto-generated for some platforms,” should be replaced with the slightly edited text from the HeadlessException(String) constructor: “For some platforms, the {@code null} detail message may be replaced with the default headless error message.”

[prrace]

I don't see why.

[prrace]

Should each constructor specify how the message returned by getMessage is constructed instead of directing to the specification of getMessage for details?

100% no. I am not wasting time on that. This whole spec. is getting revamped again in JDK 26 in very short order after this minimal fix is backported to JDK 25

[aivanov-jdk]

Should each constructor specify how the message returned by getMessage is constructed instead of directing to the specification of getMessage for details?

100% no. I am not wasting time on that. This whole spec. is getting revamped again in JDK 26 in very short order after this minimal fix is backported to JDK 25

I see, thank you for your clarification.

So, this is a minimal update to the specification to quickly address the problem with null vs. empty message, which is being backported to JDK 25; the specification for JDK 26 is going to be overhauled shortly.

Is my understanding correct now?

[prrace]

Should each constructor specify how the message returned by getMessage is constructed instead of directing to the specification of getMessage for details?

100% no. I am not wasting time on that. This whole spec. is getting revamped again in JDK 26 in very short order after this minimal fix is backported to JDK 25

I see, thank you for your clarification.

So, this is a minimal update to the specification to quickly address the problem with null vs. empty message, which is being backported to JDK 25; the specification for JDK 26 is going to be overhauled shortly.

Is my understanding correct now?

Right. What I am obliged to do in order to satisfy one specific TCK test. Nothing more.

[aivanov-jdk]

Right. What I am obliged to do in order to satisfy one specific TCK test. Nothing more.

Thank you! It makes perfect sense.

Looks good to me.