Hi, Alan.

Looks fantastic!

By fixing these javadoc warnings for @throws and @param, I'm assuming that we 
will be changing the generated javadoc.  Are any of these changes significant 
enough to warrant a ccc?  Most of the changes looked fairly innocuous but there 
are a couple here and there (e.g. java.lang.management.ThreadInfo, 
java.util.JapaneseImperialCalendar) that may warrant a closer look.

In java.util.Locale it looks like you determined that the '/' used for tag 
self-termination is unacceptable.  Does it need to stay there now that you've 
done the explicit termination?

(e.g. 
your new l86: <dt><a name="def_language"/><b>language</b></a></dt>
Proposed new: <dt><a name="def_language"><b>language</b></a></dt>
)

Thanks,
iris

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Bateman 
Sent: Saturday, September 29, 2012 1:52 PM
To: core-libs-dev
Subject: 8000269: Cleanup javadoc warnings


A small number of javadoc warnings have sneaked into the jdk8 builds lately. 
They are easily fixed but it's a good opportunity to try out Jon's doccheck 
tool [1], built on the DocTree API, and get a better workout. I decided to 
mostly focus on -Xmsgs:reference, which covers references like @param and 
@throws. I fixed a small number of html issues along the way but that was not 
my focus. The webrev, which fixes up most of the reference issues in roughly 
the core area, is here:

http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8000269/webrev/index.html

When I say "most" then I excluded j.u.c and java.lang.invoke.

The reason that so many files are changed is because doccheck looks at private 
and package-private classes and methods that wouldn't normally be in the 
javadoc. Also, no foray into the *Permission classes is possible without fixing 
up at least a few formatting issues. Note that there is one non-javadoc change 
in this webrev; in java.net.Inet4Address I have removed a private static field 
that has not been used for several releases.

The changes are trivial and easy to review. At it covers many areas then 
partial reviews are okay too.

Thanks,

Alan.

[1]
http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/compiler-dev/2012-September/004800.html

Reply via email to