I've posted the javadoc output from some small examples of records and sealed types.

Three of the examples, Point, BinaryNode and Holder, were suggested by Brian as commonly used examples. The last example, Coords, declares a sealed type with two different records as subtypes, just to show how the features can be used together.

You can find the output here:

1. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/api-no-link/


   This is output from a "simple" run of javadoc, that does not link to
   JDK documentation.
   In this version, references into java.base etc show up as unlinked
   monospaced text.

2. http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/api-with-link/

   This is the output from a similar run of javadoc (same examples),
   but this time the
   -linkoffline option was used so that references into java.base are
   linked as you would expect.


In both cases, I also used the "-linksource" option, so that you can also see the original source file. Look for the link in the declaration of the type name near the top of each page.
For example, click on "Foo" where you see "public record Foo", etc.

You can also see the raw source files here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/amber-records-and-sealed-types/src/

------

Discussion:

Currently, the generated documentation consistently uses the full phrase "record components" when referencing record components. This means that some of the generated text feels a little clunky. I see that in some of the hard-written doc comments (e.g. on java.lang.Record) the phrase is shortened to just "component" when the context is obvious.  Do we want to do
the same here? Are there any guidelines on the terminology?

Currently, following established historical precedent, records appear in their own group on the package page, alongside individual groups for classes, interfaces, enums, exceptions, errors and annotation types.  For example, look at the docs for any recent version of java.lang:
https://docs.oracle.com/en/java/javase/11/docs/api/java.base/java/lang/package-summary.html
It may be that 7 (!!) groups is a few too many, and that maybe we should reorganize these pages a bit, perhaps moving towards a tabbed table, of the sort we use on other pages. But whether or not we do anything is out of scope for this project, and should be handled separately, as a
distinct enhancement for javadoc.

-- Jon


Reply via email to