RFR 8145263: JShell API: Change the format of SourceCodeAnalysis#documentation
ShinyaYoshida
bitterfoxc at gmail.com
Sat Oct 15 12:45:24 UTC 2016
resending...
2016-10-06 14:02 GMT+09:00 ShinyaYoshida <bitterfoxc at gmail.com>:
> Hi Robert, Brian and Jan,
> Thank you for your review and sorry for late reply.
>
> I think throws-clause is still necessary information even if javadoc is
> implemented because some of methods doesn't provide javadoc, such as user
> defined methods or methods in user loaded jars.
> What do you think?
> If you think it's still overkill, I'll drop it.
>
> Regards,
> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>
>
> 2016-10-04 5:04 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com>:
>
>> Looks OK to me too. I don't have a strong opinion on the throws clause.
>>
>> Jan
>>
>> On 30.9.2016 17:26, Robert Field wrote:
>>
>>> Nice!
>>>
>>> Includes a lot of touches to make it more readable and useful.
>>>
>>> Passing on one bit of feedback from Brian, put into my words: since we
>>> are going to be adding full javadoc access, we want this signature
>>> output crisp. So, the throws clause is probably overkill.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Robert
>>>
>>> On September 30, 2016 4:04:03 AM ShinyaYoshida <bitterfoxc at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Robert and Jan,
>>>> I've updated the webrev to current code base:
>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.10/
>>>>
>>>> Could you review this?
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 2016-09-27 4:51 GMT+09:00 ShinyaYoshida <bitterfoxc at gmail.com
>>>> <mailto:bitterfoxc at gmail.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi Robert,
>>>> Never mind! And I'm also sorry for having left this.
>>>>
>>>> I'll try updating webrev to current code base until 1/Oct.
>>>>
>>>> BTW, currently a lot of things in jshell are configurable, could
>>>> signature of documentation also be configurable in future(JDK10 or
>>>> 9.1 or ...)?
>>>>
>>>> Thank you,
>>>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>>>
>>>> 2016-09-26 12:41 GMT-07:00 Robert Field <robert.field at oracle.com
>>>> <mailto:robert.field at oracle.com>>:
>>>>
>>>> In reviewing outstanding issues, we discovered this RFR which
>>>> was left hanging.
>>>>
>>>> Our sincere apologies for dropping the ball on this.
>>>>
>>>> We are juggling a lot, if we miss something like this in the
>>>> future, please let us know.
>>>>
>>>> I have made some changes in the issue, please note them. I
>>>> know there have been some underlying changes as well
>>>> (parameter names from source).
>>>>
>>>> If you would be willing to update this RFR we will review
>>>> promptly.
>>>>
>>>> Thank you and sorry,
>>>> Robert
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 12/15/15 17:07, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jan and Robert,
>>>>> Thank you.
>>>>>
>>>>> I've filed:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145473
>>>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145473>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, I put the type parameters for the constructor before the
>>>>> traditional(current) form:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~shinyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.01/
>>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eshinyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.01/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please review it again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-12-16 5:56 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda <jan.lahoda at oracle.com
>>>>> <mailto:jan.lahoda at oracle.com>>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Shinya,
>>>>>
>>>>> On 14.12.2015 15:40, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jan,
>>>>> Thank you for your review.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-12-14 23:24 GMT+09:00 Jan Lahoda
>>>>> <jan.lahoda at oracle.com <mailto:jan.lahoda at oracle.com>
>>>>> <mailto:jan.lahoda at oracle.com
>>>>>
>>>>> <mailto:jan.lahoda at oracle.com>>>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Shinya,
>>>>>
>>>>> Generally, looks good, thanks for looking at
>>>>> this! Two comments:
>>>>> -for parameter names, I was hoping we could get
>>>>> them from the
>>>>> sources (if/when available), but we are not doing
>>>>> that now, and
>>>>> hiding synthetic parameter names makes sense to
>>>>> me. So this is OK,
>>>>> and if we at some point start to parse parameter
>>>>> names from the
>>>>> sources, we can tweak the code to do the right
>>>>> thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that there should be the issue for the
>>>>> parameter names.
>>>>> Do you have the issue for that?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No issue for this yet.
>>>>>
>>>>> If not, should I create it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure, thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -not sure if marking constructors with ".new"
>>>>> ("type-name.new(<parameters>)") will be clear -
>>>>> do you think the
>>>>> traditional form ("type-name(<parameters>)") is
>>>>> unclear?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I consider the constructor with the generics
>>>>> like following, I
>>>>> notice that the traditional(current) form is
>>>>> difficult to represent it.
>>>>> class C<T> { <U> C(U u) {} }
>>>>> So I choose that format which is like the constructor
>>>>> reference.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think generic constructors (i.e. constructors that
>>>>> themselves have type parameters) are very uncommon, so I
>>>>> wouldn't optimize for those. Having the format nice for
>>>>> usual constructors is more important, I think, even if
>>>>> the format for these uncommon constructors would be uglier.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another possible representation is "new <Generics>
>>>>> type-name<Generics>(<parameters>)" which is similar
>>>>> to the invocation of
>>>>> the constructor with generics.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>> Jan
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 13.12.2015 07:33, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jan and Robert,
>>>>> I'd like to propose changing the format of
>>>>> SourceCodeAnalysis#documentation.
>>>>>
>>>>> The detail of the change is on the issue
>>>>> 8145263:
>>>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145263
>>>>> <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8145263>
>>>>> Please see it.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can see the more example in the test of
>>>>> my patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Patch is here:
>>>>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sh
>>>>> inyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.00/
>>>>> <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7
>>>>> Eshinyafox/kulla/8145263/webrev.00/>
>>>>>
>>>>> Please consider my proposal and review the
>>>>> patch.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>> shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>
More information about the kulla-dev
mailing list