|
Quick Lists
|
|
Bug ID:
|
4421066
|
|
Votes
|
0
|
|
Synopsis
|
Doclet API: Generics versus javadoc and the doclet API
|
|
Category
|
java:javadoctool
|
|
Reported Against
|
tiger
|
|
Release Fixed
|
1.5(tiger)
|
|
State
|
10-Fix Delivered,
bug
|
|
Priority:
|
4-Low
|
|
Related Bugs
|
4421040
,
4909767
,
4965490
|
|
Submit Date
|
02-MAR-2001
|
|
Description
|
... Note that because javadoc has an exclusively source level
perspective, javadoc will be broken if generic support does
not roll out with generics.
Impact on Doclet API
Two new sub-interfaces of Type will need to be added.
Their exactly structure will need to be carefully
considered so that existing doclets "fail" as gently
as possible. Several other methods will need to be
added to MethodDoc, ClassDoc, Type, ...
See discussion of class definition vs class use, at
the bottom.
Impact on Doclet API implementation (aka javadoc tool)
This requires that:
* we complete (or re-implement) the Doclet API
implementation on the new compiler.
* we extend it with the new API functionality.
Impact on Standard Doclet
This change will have some impact on just about every
corner of the Standard Doclet.
|
|
Work Around
|
N/A
|
|
Evaluation
|
Yes, this is absolutely true.
xxxxx@xxxxx 2001-03-02
I don't think the impact is as earth-shattering as this description implies.
xxxxx@xxxxx 2001-03-19
Note there is a difficult issue in generifying the documents: what syntax will
be used to indicate generic parameters? If we use the obvious source-level
syntax in the documents
<I>
that will look like an HTML tag and turn everything italic.
On the other hand, if we use the obvious HTML syntax
<I>
then our users will wail and moan. Perhaps we need to invent a compromise
just for javadoc - such as an embedded tag
@tparam(I)
Then Map<K,Map.Entry<K,V>> will be written
xxxxx@xxxxx (K, xxxxx@xxxxx (K,V))
Alternately, perhaps we should stop trying to directly support HTML.
xxxxx@xxxxx 2003-03-23
|
|
Comments
|
PLEASE NOTE: JDK6 is formerly known as Project Mustang
|
|
|
 |