sample javadoc output for records and sealed types.

[Chris Hegarty]

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 <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com> 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
> 
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/amber-spec-experts/attachments/20191011/64fba0da/attachment-0001.html>