RFR: JDK-8237803 Reorganize impl of tool options
jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com
Fri Jan 24 17:13:41 UTC 2020
Note also that unlike the doclet part of javadoc, the tool part of
javadoc is (and has always been) tightly coupled to javac, and directly
uses a number of internal javac interfaces, to modify javac behavior.
For example, this includes providing custom subtypes to override javac
behavior to read files like package.html, to not analyze method bodies,
and even to discard method bodies, which are of no relevance to javadoc.
In other words, the tool part of javadoc is allowed access to javac
internals, whereas we try and restrict the doclet, which is conceptually
a plugin, to the public APIs like Compiler Tree API (com.sun.source.*)
and Language Model API (javax.lang.model.*)
On 1/24/20 8:57 AM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
> Re: com.sun.tools.javac.main.Option.*
> Well, it is deliberate and intentional that we fully delegate to javac
> those options that are handled by javac, like path-related options,
> --source, --release, --enable-preview etc. This reflects the fact that
> we totally rely on the javac front end to read source and class files.
> It was actually a big step forward in the JDK 9 rewrite that we
> properly delegate through the underlying Option objects, as compared
> to tunneling values into the compOpts object, as was done previously,
> which bypassed much of javac's checking.
> -- Jon
> On 1/24/20 8:51 AM, Pavel Rappo wrote:
>> Hi Jon,
>> I'm still working through the review but I have to say that degree to
>> which com.sun.tools.javac.main.Option.* types have percolated to the
>> javadoc internal interfaces is unsettling. I understand this is
>> probably due to practical and historical reasons. Maybe we could
>> address that later.
>>> On 24 Jan 2020, at 02:30, Jonathan Gibbons
>>> <jonathan.gibbons at oracle.com> wrote:
>>> Although the underlying problems are different, the general goal of
>>> this cleanup is similar in nature to that of the recent cleanup for
>>> doclet options.
>>> In this case, the effect is not as widespread ... just 6 source
>>> files affected, no tests ... but the changes to the main affected
>>> class are more substantial, although still primarily a refactoring
>>> and just moving code around, with no intentional change in
>>> To describe the changes, let me describe the world before this change:
>>> The ToolOption class followed the javac model for options and used
>>> an enum to represent the individual supported options. One problem
>>> of using an enum is that they are implicitly static, and so have
>>> never have any enclosing context. This means that when analyzing
>>> command-line arguments, the enum members need to be given an object
>>> providing the necessary context. In the case of ToolOption, this was
>>> a nested Helper class, which contained a mix of fields containing
>>> the values for some options, most notably those used in Start, and a
>>> map of objects for the values of other options, where the map was
>>> literally, Map<ToolOption,Object>. This led to "clunky" code to
>>> access the values in the map and to cast the result to the correct
>>> type for each value.
>>> In general, while there were some benefits to using the enum (such
>>> as being able to refer to some of the options by their member name),
>>> the cost outweighed the benefits.
>>> The primary change is to invert the nesting relationship between
>>> ToolOption and its Helper, and to rename and refactor the code
>>> To summarize the changes,
>>> 1. ToolOption.Helper becomes a new top-level class ToolOptions,
>>> which is the new primary abstraction for the accessing everything to
>>> do with tool options.
>>> 2. ToolOption is changed from a top-level enum to a nested class
>>> in ToolOptions, with the members becoming a simple List<ToolOption>.
>>> 3. All option values are represented as properly-typed
>>> encapsulated fields of ToolOptions. The fields are encapsulated,
>>> based on the feedback for the doclet options review.
>>> 4. The direct use and passing around of the Map jdToolOpts is
>>> replaced by direct use of the new ToolOptions class.
>>> 5. ToolOptions uses a new ShowHelper interface to separate out
>>> the functionality for handling options like --help and --verbose.
>>> Previously, Start implemented ToolOption.Help directly; now, it just
>>> uses a local anonymous class instead.
>>> 6. ToolOption.java is renamed to ToolOptions.java, to retain
>>> history and to maximize the opportunity to compare the old and new
>>> There are no significant changes to the high-level option handling
>>> in Start, which continues to do the double scan, to pick up
>>> selection options, like -doclet, -docletpath, -locale, before doing
>>> the main scan. The handling of OptionException could also be
>>> simplified (separately), possibly allowing the ShowHelper class to
>>> be eliminated.
>>> One of the advantages of using the enum (in the old code) was that
>>> it allowed symbolic references to options handled in
>>> Start.preprocess. These references are fixed up by defining string
>>> constants for the names of the handful of options in question, which
>>> is all that is needed.
>>> While the code is generally cleaner for allowing the ToolOption
>>> objects to be inner classes of ToolOptions, it does mean they can
>>> only exist in the context of a ToolOptions object. This has an
>>> impact on a little-used method on the DocumentationTask interface,
>>> to determine if an option name is supported. The body of the
>>> implementing method is moved into ToolOptions, which creates a
>>> temporary minimal ToolOptions object, sufficient to the needs of the
>>> isSupportedOption method.
>>> -- Jon
>>> JBS: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8237803
>>> Webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jjg/8237803/webrev/
More information about the javadoc-dev