RFR 8145263: JShell API: Change the format of SourceCodeAnalysis#documentation
ShinyaYoshida
bitterfoxc at gmail.com
Mon Oct 17 14:25:00 UTC 2016
Hi Robert,
I've pushed:
http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk9/dev/langtools/rev/296c87505118
Thank you!
shinyafox(Shinya Yoshida)
2016-10-17 5:00 GMT+09:00 Robert Field <robert.field at oracle.com>:
> If we find the throws info too much, we can pull it later.
>
> I believe this change needs to be pushed before:
> 8131019: jshell tool: access javadoc from tool
> which now has the go-away.
>
> So, Shinya, yes, please push it
>
> Thanks!
>
> -Robert
>
>
>
> On 10/15/16 05:45, ShinyaYoshida wrote:
>
> 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.0
>>>>>> 1/ <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