RFR : JDK-8215599 : Remove support for javadoc "frames" mode

[Jonathan Gibbons]

(Minor)  Please be careful when posting links to updated webrevs.

In the link below, the clear-text says "webrev.01" but the underlying 
link is for "webrev.00".  This can be somewhat confusing. :-)

-- Jon

On 03/11/2019 06:28 AM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
>
> Hi Jon,
>
> Thanks for the review.
> I have updated the webrev.
>
> webrev : http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8215599/webrev.01/
>
> Reg ModuleIndexWriter, old lines 98-106:
> After removing frames, the methods AllClassesLink/AllModulesLink have 
> been removed as they implemented in frame classes.
> With out these, we are just creating empty list. That's the reason for 
> deleting these lines.
> This change is similar to AbstractModuleIndexWriter lines old lines 
> 251-258, in the updated webrev, i have removed the creation of empty list.
>
> Thanks,
> Priya
>
> On 3/9/2019 6:48 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 03/08/2019 03:12 AM, Priya Lakshmi Muthuswamy wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Kindly review the changes for removal of frames.
>>> Removed the script for setting window title which was needed for 
>>> frames and also the boolean includeScript,
>>> which was false for overview-frame,allclasses-frame and 
>>> package-frame and true for all other cases.
>>>
>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215599
>>> webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~pmuthuswamy/8215599/webrev.00/
>>> CSR: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8215603
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Priya
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> AbstractModuleIndexWriter.java
>> lines 243,244
>> You're creating an empty list and adding it to the header.
>> I think you can delete these lines.
>>
>> AbstractPackageIndexWriter.java
>> line 43:  bad grammar in comment "sub-classed by to"
>>
>>
>> IndexRedirectWriter
>> line 81: it's an unrelated change, but looks OK
>>
>>
>> ModuleIndexWriter
>> old lines 98-106: please explain why you have deleted these lines
>> they don't look immediately related to the Frames support.
>>
>> standard.properties
>> The message needs fixing. The user has asked for "no frames"
>> and the message is about "frames": i.e. it's not directly related
>> to what the user did. I suggest:
>> 445 doclet.NoFrames_specified=\
>> 446 The --no-frames option is no longer required and may be removed\n
>> 447 in a future release.
>>
>> DocPaths.java
>> I'm slightly surprised there were quite so many variants of 
>> allclasses*.html files!
>>
>> TestGeneratedBY.java
>> You've commented out a test ...
>>
>> -- Jon

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20190314/2f5a39f6/attachment.html>