<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
I just wanted to say that the platform is evolving, the toolset is evolving, so we might as well evolve where it makes sense technically.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
If we talk about "consistency", our code is already inconsistent to begin with. @Override annotations on the same line vs its own line, switch statements vs switch expressions, line wrapping where there should be no wrapping, newlines added or omitted, final
used and not used, null property values allowed and not allowed without documenting, boolean values initialized to false, objects initialized to null and not, and so on and so forth.</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="font-size: 12pt;">So basically, I think that </span><span style="font-size: 16px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">consistency for the sake of consistency is a poor argument. I would rather let the people decide when they use the new format
- in the new code, or in the old code when javadoc changed substantially. Also, we might want to keep in mind that at the end, publicly visible outcome in the form of the API Spec, is the same in either case.</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">-andy</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</span></div>
<div dir="ltr" style="font-family: "Iosevka Fixed SS16", Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
<div id="mail-editor-reference-message-container">
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing">
<meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Exchange Server">
</div>
<div class="ms-outlook-mobile-reference-message skipProofing" style="text-align: left; padding: 3pt 0in 0in; border-width: 1pt medium medium; border-style: solid none none; border-color: rgb(181, 196, 223) currentcolor currentcolor; font-family: Aptos; font-size: 12pt; color: black;">
<b>From: </b>openjfx-dev <openjfx-dev-retn@openjdk.org> on behalf of Kevin Rushforth <kevin.rushforth@oracle.com><br>
<b>Date: </b>Friday, October 10, 2025 at 12:26<br>
<b>To: </b>openjfx-dev@openjdk.org <openjfx-dev@openjdk.org><br>
<b>Subject: </b>Re: Using markdown-style javadoc comments (JEP 467)<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="PlainText" style="font-size: 11pt;">I informally polled a few folks in the core libs group. They haven't<br>
started using it in the JDK yet, but would consider it primarily for new<br>
classes; some felt as Michael did that mixing styles in the same class<br>
would be annoying.<br>
<br>
I can see the argument for consistency, especially in a file like Node<br>
or Control, where we have many existing properties and other methods.<br>
For additions of a new property or method in such a file, consistency<br>
seems more important than being able to use markdown.<br>
<br>
In cases where there aren't so many methods, or where you are already<br>
modifying many of them, it might be reasonable to use markdown for new<br>
or modified methods.<br>
<br>
Perhaps as a compromise, we could consider allowing for new classes and<br>
classes where you are modifying a large percentage of the existing docs<br>
anyway, but in general, avoid using markdown in existing classes.<br>
<br>
Concretely, that would mean asking Nir to update PR 1873 [1] to not use<br>
markdown-style doc comments (it seems gratuitous there anyway, since it<br>
isn't using any markdown syntax), but allow the use of markdown in PR<br>
1880 [2].<br>
<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
-- Kevin<br>
<br>
[1] <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1873" data-outlook-id="3e3a3ded-a6ab-48d0-bd2c-54820ea9f1cf">
https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1873</a><br>
[2] <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1880" data-outlook-id="986ce710-11af-4e32-b456-d79041c5dd26">
https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1880</a><br>
<br>
<br>
On 10/7/2025 6:33 AM, John Hendrikx wrote:<br>
> I'm of the same mind. I don't see a use case for markdown comments at<br>
> all in a<br>
> project as mature as JavaFX, and I'm unlikely to use them, even for new<br>
> files simply to be<br>
> more consistent with other existing files (and I may copy/paste docs<br>
> sometimes as well).<br>
><br>
> There are barely any code conventions in FX as it is (indent is 4<br>
> spaces, and general Java naming<br>
> conventions are the only ones that I think of that are consistent<br>
> through-out the project), but<br>
> a consistent Javadoc style can also be considered one currently... still.<br>
><br>
> --John<br>
><br>
> On 07/10/2025 10:47, Michael Strauß wrote:<br>
>> Markdown comments are not _better_ than HTML comments, they are just<br>
>> different. In particular, I question the unsubstantiated claim that<br>
>> markdown comments are more readable; I've never once struggled with<br>
>> reading HTML comments, especially if you use the recent additions like<br>
>> {@snippet}.<br>
>><br>
>> I might use markdown comments myself if I were to start a greenfield<br>
>> project. But in a mature project, consistency is more important than<br>
>> (at best) tiny ergonomic improvements. In fact, consistency is one of<br>
>> the most important factors contributing to ergonomy. You point out<br>
>> that you wouldn't want to invite wholesale refactoring, but to be<br>
>> fair, I'd rather have a wholesale refactor to use markdown comments<br>
>> everywhere than be forever annoyed to see two wildly different comment<br>
>> styles next to each other.<br>
>><br>
>> I've looked at recent CSRs and API additions in the JDK, and haven't<br>
>> found a single one using markdown comments. Why the rush to be the<br>
>> first project to use them?<br>
>><br>
>> In any case, if we end up allowing markdown comments, I would strongly<br>
>> suggest to only allow a single comment style per file. Mixing both<br>
>> styles in a single file is an unmitigated readability disaster.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2025 at 7:33 PM Kevin Rushforth<br>
>> <kevin.rushforth@oracle.com> wrote:<br>
>>> Now that JavaFX requires JDK 24 to build, we can use features from JDK<br>
>>> 23 and 24 like markdown javadoc comments from JEP 467 [0], which was<br>
>>> delivered in JDK 23.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Two outstanding pull requests, PR 1873 [1] and PR 1880 [2], have<br>
>>> proposed changes that do just that.<br>
>>><br>
>>> As was pointed out in a review comment on PR 1873 [3], we should make a<br>
>>> deliberate decision to start using them and have some guidelines around<br>
>>> doing so.<br>
>>><br>
>>> To that end, I would propose that developers can start using markdown<br>
>>> javadoc comments in new APIs and in APIs that are modified such that<br>
>>> markdown comments would be helpful.<br>
>>><br>
>>> This is not an invitation to do wholesale changing of existing javadoc<br>
>>> comments to markdown-style comments for docs that otherwise aren't being<br>
>>> modified.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Comments are welcome.<br>
>>><br>
>>> -- Kevin<br>
>>><br>
>>> [0] <a href="https://openjdk.org/jeps/467" data-outlook-id="936a282f-02cf-47fe-ba8a-0836c2124ad0">
https://openjdk.org/jeps/467</a><br>
>>> [1] <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1873" data-outlook-id="34c2667c-1a3c-4493-8558-e5dfe9067210">
https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1873</a><br>
>>> [2] <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1880" data-outlook-id="91449edc-5638-434d-ba41-3809a6777a5d">
https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1880</a><br>
>>> [3] <a href="https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1873#discussion_r2283161713" data-outlook-id="e939fac3-4136-4424-bde9-7e0ed91fdbd1">
https://github.com/openjdk/jfx/pull/1873#discussion_r2283161713</a><br>
>>><br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>