Javadoc vs Accessibility

[Jonathan Gibbons]

I see the command line help text has not been updated for the existing 
simple options. That is a bug.

-- Jon



On 01/30/2017 04:05 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Nicolai,
>
> The simple answer is "Yes, there will be an easy way to generate 
> documentation based on accessibility",
> and "yes, the javadoc tool is module aware".
>
> We've added new options that generalize the existing simple options, 
> so that you can have detailed
> control if you really need it, but the existing options will, to a 
> large extent, "do the right thing" and should
> be sufficient for the common cases.
>
> From the command-line help, the relevant new options are the following:
>
>     --show-members <value>
>                   Specifies which members (fields, methods, etc.) will be
>                   documented, where value can be one of "public", 
> "protected",
>                   "package" or "private". The default is "protected", 
> which will
>                   show public and protected members, "public" will 
> show only
>                   public members, "package" will show public, 
> protected and
>                   package members and "private" will show all members.
>     --show-module-contents <value>
>                   Specifies the documentation granularity of module
>                   declarations. Possible values are "api" or "all".
>     --show-packages <value>
>                   Specifies which modules packages will be documented. 
> Possible
>                   values are "exported" or "all" packages.
>     --show-types <value>
>                   Specifies which types (classes, interfaces, etc.) 
> will be
>                   documented, where value can be one of "public", 
> "protected",
>                   "package" or "private". The default is "protected", 
> which will
>                   show public and protected types, "public" will show 
> only
>                   public types, "package" will show public, protected and
>                   package types and "private" will show all types.
>
>
> That's a lot of options and a lot of text.
>
> The good news is that you can use the existing simple options, which 
> are now
> internally defined in terms of those new options
>
>     -public
>           --show-module-contents api --show-packages exported 
> --show-types public --show-members public
>
>     -protected   (the long-standing default)
>           --show-module-contents api --show-packages exported 
> --show-types protected --show-members protected
>
>     -package
>           --show-module-contents all --show-packages all --show-types 
> package --show-members package
>
>     -public
>           --show-module-contents all --show-packages all --show-types 
> private --show-members private
>
>
> There's other useful new options as well:
>
>     --expand-requires <value>
>                   Instructs the tool to expand the set of modules to be
>                   documented. By default, only the modules given 
> explicitly on
>                   the command line will be documented. A value of 
> "transitive" will
>                   additionally include all "requires transitive" 
> dependencies of
>                   those modules. A value of "all" will include all 
> dependencies
>                   of those modules.
>
>     --module <module>(,<module>)*
>                   Document the specified module(s)
>
> And so, in principle, to generate the current Java SE API 
> documentation, you should be able to go
>
>     javadoc ...path.options...  --expand-requires transitive --module 
> java.se
>
>
> Caveat: we are still refining the details of the appearance of some 
> pages, particularly the summary
> page for a module.
>
>
> -- Jon
>
>
> On 01/30/2017 03:28 PM, Nicolai Parlog wrote:
>>   Hi!
>>
>> There is an interesting question up on StackOverflow, "How does the
>> Javadoc deal with the visibility of modules in Java 9?".
>>
>>     http://stackoverflow.com/q/41929425/2525313
>>
>> It asks whether there will be an easy way to generate documentation
>> based on accessibility?
>>
>> Next to an actual answer, any pointer to docs would be appreciated as 
>> well.
>>
>>   so long ... Nicolai
>>
>>
>>
>