<!DOCTYPE html><html><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 15/05/2024 09:16, Magnus Ihse Bursie
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:976849d3-3c0e-4ea3-be6f-f549761bdc9d@oracle.com">
<p>On 2024-05-15 02:13, Nizar Benalla wrote:</p>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:BL3PR10MB618653272EB340661F4CA1978AE32@BL3PR10MB6186.namprd10.prod.outlook.com">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none;">P {margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;}</style>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
Hello,<br>
<br>
I discovered after some recent work around javadoc that
`javac` does not recognize `package.html` files, which predate
`package-info.java`. Some tools that want to analyze doc
comments need to deal with this in special ways.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<span style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">Maybe
optional support for these files can be added into `javac`.
But with only 21 `package.html` files in the JDK in modules
that do not have internal in the name, I want to suggest
simply converting them as it will be done once and won't
need maintenance</span></div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
There are 9 package.html files I'd like to convert into
package-info.java in java.management, one in
java.management.rmi (and if this passes, one in java.naming)<br>
<br>
I want to hear what you think,<br>
Nizar</div>
<div class="elementToProof" style="font-family: Aptos, Aptos_EmbeddedFont, Aptos_MSFontService, Calibri, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 12pt; color: rgb(0, 0, 0);">
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
<p>That sounds like a straightforward and beneficial conversion.
As you say, the package.html format is old, and provides no
benefits to package-info.java.</p>
<br>
</blockquote>
I agree. There was an effort a few years ago to replace html package
descriptions with package-info.java but it seems that a few of them
weren't done at the time.<br>
<br>
-Alan<br>
</body>
</html>