RFR: JDK-8172312 Update docs target and image for new combined docs

Mandy Chung mandy.chung at oracle.com
Thu Mar 30 16:35:51 UTC 2017

> On Mar 30, 2017, at 6:05 AM, Magnus Ihse Bursie <magnus.ihse.bursie at oracle.com> wrote:
> As a part of JEP 299, we should build the Javadoc as a single combined output, instead of a dozen or so individual javadoc bundles. This bug fixes this. The selection on what to include is now based on modules instead of packages.
> The fix in MakeBase.gmk is to keep CacheFind quiet if the src dir(s) does not exist, otherwise find can emit an error message. (This was provoked by the new call to SetupZipArchive).
> The module selection has been contributed by Mandy Chang.
> I intend to push this to JDK9. Since this is a noreg-doc bug, no special RDP2 process is required.
> Bug: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172312 <https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172312>
> WebRev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8172312-combined-javadocs/webrev.01 <http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ihse/JDK-8172312-combined-javadocs/webrev.01>


I should have cleaned this up in the sandbox and I will leave it for you if you don’t mind.
 141 #
 142 # Workaround --expand-requires transitive that does not include java.base
 143 #
 144 DOCS_MODULES += \
 145     java.base \
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8176481 has been fixed.  This can be removed now.  It’d be good to add a comment something like this.

# DOCS_MODULES defines the root modules for javadoc generation.
# All of their `require transitive` modules directly and indirectly will be included.

I will file an issue to follow up the platform-specific modules.   Can you remove 
 125   DOCS_MODULES += jdk.crypto.mscapi
 130   DOCS_MODULES += jdk.crypto.ucrypto
I suggest to name the javadoc output directory as “javase-docs/api” in the same layout as described in JEP 299.  It may copy the specs under javase-docs/specs directory in the future.
 239                 --module $(call CommaList, java.base java.se.ee))
java.base can be removed since JDK-8176481 has been resolved.

More information about the build-dev mailing list