Anyone willing to help review the patch, please?
-Jaikiran
On 20/08/18 5:56 PM, Jaikiran Pai wrote:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I'm requesting a review of a documentation change which was discussed in
> a recent thread[1][2]. Here's an initial proposed draft, for a better
> documentation of Arrays.asList method:
>
> /**
> * Returns a fixed-size list backed by the specified array. The passed
> * array is held as a reference in the returned list. Any subsequent
> * changes made to the array contents will be visible in the returned
> * list. Similarly any changes that happen in the returned list will
> * also be visible in the array. The returned list is serializable and
> * implements {@link RandomAccess}.
> *
> * <p>The returned list can be changed only in certain ways. Operations
> * like {@code add}, {@code remove}, {@code clear} and other such, that
> * change the size of the list aren't allowed. Operations like
> * {@code replaceAll}, {@code set}, that change the elements in the list
> * are permitted.
> *
> * <p>This method acts as bridge between array-based and
> collection-based
> * APIs, in combination with {@link Collection#toArray}.
> *
> * @apiNote
> * This method also provides a convenient way to create a fixed-size
> * list initialized to contain several elements:
> * <pre>
> * List<String> stooges = Arrays.asList("Larry", "Moe",
> "Curly");
> * </pre>
> *
> * <p>The returned list throws a {@link
> UnsupportedOperationException} for
> * operations that aren't permitted. Certain implementations of the
> returned
> * list might choose to throw the exception only if the call to such
> methods
> * results in an actual change, whereas certain other
> implementations may
> * always throw the exception when such methods are called.
> *
> * @param <T> the class of the objects in the array
> * @param a the array by which the list will be backed
> * @return a list view of the specified array
> */
> @SafeVarargs
> @SuppressWarnings("varargs")
> public static <T> List<T> asList(T... a)
>
>
> I've edited some of the existing documentation of that method, moved
> some existing parts into @apiNote and added additional parts both to the
> spec as well as the @apiNote. For a complete reference of what's
> changed, I've also attached a patch of this change.
>
> P.S: Is there a specific (make) target that I can run to make sure
> changes like this one haven't caused any javadoc generation issues? I
> typically run just "make" and did it this time too, but I'm not sure it
> parses and generates the javadocs (couldn't find it in the generated
> exploded build image).
>
> [1]
> http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/core-libs-dev/2018-August/054894.html
>
> [2] https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-7033681
>
> -Jaikiran
