parameter types in @link tag

[Jonathan Gibbons]

Hi Anna,

The intent is that the names should follow javac usage: either use a 
qualified name or use a simple name that is in scope, such as an 
imported name.

That being said, javadoc does not use pure-javac code for the lookup, 
and there are some allowances made for historical usage. I could believe 
there are residual bugs in this area, and any resolution would be in 
favor of moving closer to javac rules where possible.

-- Jon

On 1/17/22 4:36 AM, Anna Kozlova wrote:
> Hi all!
>
> I am trying to figure out if the javadoc tool should be ok with a 
> short class name as parameter type. Is there any specification on 
> @link tag format?
>
> E.g. javadoc for `java.io.File#isDirectory` contains the following 
> "{@link java.nio.file.Files#readAttributes(Path,Class,LinkOption[])". 
> LinkOption
> isn't resolved but the generated html correctly navigates the 
> "readAttributes" method. This makes me suspect that the signatures are 
> checked by short names only.
> But this leads to the problem with the ambiguity:
> ```class Foo {
> /**
> * {@link #bar(Bar)} */ void foo() {}
>      void bar(Foo2.Bar f) {}
>      void bar(Foo1.Bar f) {}
> }
> class Foo1 {
>      static class Bar {}
> }
> class Foo2 {
>      static class Bar {}
> }```
> Here the link points to the first method as it is written in the class 
> "Foo" which looks wrong, or is it ok?
>
> Thank you,
> Anna Kozlova
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/javadoc-dev/attachments/20220118/e00cf800/attachment.htm>