Which packages are exported?

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Paul,

Generally speaking, you can translate "profiles" in JDK 8 documentation 
into "modules" for JDK 9 documentation.

And, I think you can assume that the default will be for javadoc to only 
generate docs for exported packages, just as the default is to generate 
docs for public/protected types, constructors and members today.  Yes, 
you'll be able to override the default, but when you're generating the 
API documentation for the users/consumers of a module, I would not 
expect non-exported packages to be present.

In addition, there is some amount of discussion of the future role of 
the frames on the left hand side.  Given the availability of the new 
Search feature in JDK 9, the utility of the indices on the left hand 
side is significantly diminished.  For example, if you want to see the 
packages available in a module, you should be able to search for the 
module name, bring up the module summary page, and see which packages 
have been exported (always) and which are not exported (if that info was 
requested when the docs were generated.)

-- Jon



On 05/16/2016 09:48 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
> Jon, I actually think the precedent set is the "All Classes" and "All 
> Profiles" toggle link in the overview-frame.html (upper-left frame) 
> [1]. When "All Profiles" is clicked and then a profile, you get an 
> additional option of "All Packages" ... so you could potentially add a 
> fourth just for "Exported Packages"
>
> PS: But I don't want to go through so many clicks :-) Having the 
> option listed immediately is preferable for my taste.
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/
>
> Cheers,
> Paul
>
> On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Jonathan Gibbons 
> <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com <mailto:jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>> wrote:
>
>     I guess there's two aspects to this discussion:
>
>     1. The packages listed in the summary page for a module.
>
>     For this, my expectation is that it may be more significant than
>     just a CSS style.
>
>     For example, one possibility is that the packages could be listed
>     in a table with different "tabs" for exported/non-exported
>     packages, similar to the "table with tabs" used to show different
>     subsets of methods, such as here:
>     http://download.java.net/java/jdk9/docs/api/java/lang/Object.html
>
>     2. Other appearances of a package name.
>
>     Here, we would have to list the various places where a package
>     name could appear, and decide which if any should be subject to
>     special CSS styling.  It has been instructive in the design to
>     look at the relationship between types and packages to find a
>     precedent for the relationship between packages and modules.  For
>     example, I note there is no special styling for package-private
>     types compared to public types.
>
>     -- Jon
>
>     On 05/16/2016 09:20 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>     Okay. Well, if it hasn't been planned, I definitely would like to
>>     make a feature request. Specifically, a CSS style for exported
>>     vs. nonexported packages so they can be stylized differently.
>>
>>     Cheers,
>>     Paul
>>
>>     On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:10 AM, Jonathan Gibbons
>>     <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
>>     <mailto:jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com>> wrote:
>>
>>         On 05/16/2016 07:52 AM, Paul Benedict wrote:
>>
>>             I was wondering if JavaDoc in JDK 9 provides any visual
>>             indicator (color, format, textual output, or otherwise)
>>             to indicate exported packages vs non-exported packages?
>>
>>             Cheers,
>>             Paul
>>
>>
>>         javadoc is still a work in progress, and somewhat late to the
>>         module game.
>>
>>         By default, javadoc should only show exported packages for a
>>         module, the same way by default it only shows public and
>>         protected constructors and members for a class, but it should
>>         be able to show all packages, just as it can show all
>>         constructors and members.
>>
>>         -- Jon
>>
>>
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20160516/ff51d8cc/attachment-0001.html>