8017325, 8017326: Cleanup of javadoc <code> tag

Joe Darcy joe.darcy at oracle.com
Mon Jun 24 10:51:06 PDT 2013


Hi Jason,

On 6/21/2013 6:58 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
> After learning that javadoc is now capable of properly formatting the 
> "<pre>{@code ...}</pre>" construct, I have updated the changeset for 
> java.security.cert. Please review instead:
>
> Webrevs --
> - java.security.cert (updated):
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017325/webrev.01/
> - java.security.spec (no change):
>     http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017326/webrev.00/

I've looked over both patches and they look fine.

However, as a follow-up, please also expand the conversion to include 
mapping "<tt>foo</tt>" => "{@code foo}".

>
> Note that this change does visibly change the generated javadoc, as 
> reported by specdiff. In particular, the change to <pre>{@code 
> ...}</pre> in the javadoc for the 
> X509Extension.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs() method now allows the 
> generated HTML to correctly display the line:
>
>    Set<String> nonCritSet = badCert.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs();
>
> which was previously (incorrectly) displayed as
>
>    Set nonCritSet = badCert.getNonCriticalExtensionOIDs();
>
> when the text "<String>" was still enclosed within 
> "<pre><code>...</code></pre>".

Running specdiff is a good double-check in this situation.

Should the scripts you are using here to placed somewhere in the JDK 
repo or in the code tools project?

Thanks,

-Joe

>
> Thanks,
> Jason
>
>
> The files that have been updated
>
> On 6/21/13 5:47 PM, Jason Uh wrote:
>> Joe, all,
>>
>> Could I please get a review of the following changes?
>>
>> These changesets convert the <code>...</code> javadoc tags to {@code
>> ...} as part of an overall effort to clean up doclint warnings.
>>
>> Webrevs --
>> - java.security.cert:
>>      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017325/webrev.00/
>> - java.security.spec:
>>      http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~juh/8017326/webrev.00/
>>
>> specdiff reported no changes in the generated docs.
>>
>> More of these to come.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Jason
>



More information about the security-dev mailing list