8016217: More javadoc warnings

[Chris Hegarty]

I eyeballed the patch file. Looks fine to me.

It is really nice to have a tool to that operates on the actual source.

-Chris.

On 10/06/2013 11:31, Alan Bateman wrote:
>
> About 8 months ago I tried an early build of doclint [1] and used it to
> fix up a bunch issues at the time [2]. It's been awhile, so I decided to
> try out the latest version to see how it has progressed. All I can say
> is "Yikes". The good news is that they reported against the original
> source and that makes it easy when compared to tools that validate the
> generated html.
>
> I decided to fix up a few issues, mostly syntax (escaping of > and < in
> particular) and a few reference issues that were missed the last time
> (or are new). There are thousands of other issues for anyone that wants
> to jump in.
>
> I've put the webrev with the changes here:
>
> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8016217/webrev/
>
> In total this fixes ~500 issues, although 270 of those were coming from
> java.sql.DatabaseMetaData due to the number of un-escaped usages of
> "=>". In many cases, the changes are simply to use {@code ..} or replace
> <code> with {@code ...}. It is tempting to just do a global replace on
> existing <code></code> usages (would fixing up content that is escaped
> of course).
>
> I've run specdiff on the before & after to check that I didn't mess
> anything up. One obvious difference is that code examples that use
> generics now have the type parameters going through to the generated
> javadoc.
>
> The webrev touches many areas but as the changes are trivial, I don't
> need a reviewer from every area.
>
> -Alan.
>
> [1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/172
> [2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/39cbe256c3d1