Jon,
The javadoc looks great.
I’m sure that this has come up already, but I cannot find it, so I’ll ask here.
Should the javadoc include the fact that a record class is `final`? Or is that
implied by the fact that it is a record?
The reason I ask is that one can write `public final record R {}`. Will the
javadoc for `R` show final? If so, then it could be a little confusing that
the docs for some records may show final and others not. Maybe it just needs to
be consistent one way or another. ( I found myself drawn to this question by
the obvious presence of the public constructor )
-Chris.
> On 11 Oct 2019, at 01:00, Jonathan Gibbons <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> I've posted the javadoc output from some small examples of records and sealed
> types.
>
> Three of the examples, Point, BinaryNode and Holder, were suggested by Brian
> as
> commonly used examples. The last example, Coords, declares a sealed type with
> two different records as subtypes, just to show how the features can be used
> together.
>
> You can find the output here:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/api-no-link/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/api-no-link/>
>
> This is output from a "simple" run of javadoc, that does not link to JDK
> documentation.
> In this version, references into java.base etc show up as unlinked monospaced
> text.
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/api-with-link/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/api-with-link/>
>
> This is the output from a similar run of javadoc (same examples), but this
> time the
> -linkoffline option was used so that references into java.base are linked as
> you would expect.
>
>
> In both cases, I also used the "-linksource" option, so that you can also see
> the original
> source file. Look for the link in the declaration of the type name near the
> top of each page.
> For example, click on "Foo" where you see "public record Foo", etc.
>
> You can also see the raw source files here:
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/src/
> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/src/>
> ------
>
> Discussion:
>
> Currently, the generated documentation consistently uses the full phrase
> "record components"
> when referencing record components. This means that some of the generated
> text feels a
> little clunky. I see that in some of the hard-written doc comments (e.g. on
> java.lang.Record)
> the phrase is shortened to just "component" when the context is obvious. Do
> we want to do
> the same here? Are there any guidelines on the terminology?
>
> Currently, following established historical precedent, records appear in
> their own group
> on the package page, alongside individual groups for classes, interfaces,
> enums, exceptions,
> errors and annotation types. For example, look at the docs for any recent
> version of java.lang:
> https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html
>
> <https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html>
> It may be that 7 (!!) groups is a few too many, and that maybe we should
> reorganize these pages
> a bit, perhaps moving towards a tabbed table, of the sort we use on other
> pages. But whether
> or not we do anything is out of scope for this project, and should be handled
> separately, as a
> distinct enhancement for javadoc.
>
> -- Jon
>
>
