Here we go!
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v2/
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v2/webrev.zip
I can't seem to find your name on the OCA list [1], have you signed it?
Otherwise we cannot accept
patches from you.
As Andrew wrote down @redhat.com should do the job.
I can comment and review the patch from a build point of view. There is a
separate processes for
approving it for inclusion in an older release, like JDK 8.
I'm aware of it. Once you are happy , I will use the patch in 8's rpms, and rpepare webrev for 9.
Later, if luck allows, I will ask for backporting to 8.
That said, your patch is mostly reasonable but there are a few things that
needs changing.
Thank you very much for review and advices!
In Main.gmk.
* Please follow the current pattern of declaring both "zip-docs" and
"zip-docs-only" and make
zip-docs depend on docs. Dependencies between top level targets should be
handled in the top level
makefile.
Done. Although Now I'm a bit unsure about the dependencies, as described lower
(*).
In Javadock.gmk.
* Please use := instead of = for variable declarations. This particular file
unfortunately has many
bad examples of where = is misused.
Fixed. I can fix the file as separate changeset for jdk9 if you agree.
* The file should be named jdk-$(FULL_VERSION)-docs.zip
done
Although now it have date. However not-nice, definitely reasonable.
* The file should be created in $(OUTPUT_ROOT)/bundles
Done.
* Having the archive only depend on COREAPI_INDEX_FILE is broken if you also
include the other docs.
Either depend on all and include all or only include the core docs. If you only
include the core
docs, the targets and file names should probably change. Depending on all is
currently tricky since
Javadock.gmk is badly written and uses a lot of phony targets instead of the
actual targets for
dependency management. That would need to be fixed.
Well yes:( (*)
I'm aware of the brokenness of it, but what to depend on?
I wonted to avoid any other configuration, so whatever make docs generates,
this target will pack.
But I stumbled over (now clear) bug in Javadock.gmk. - any time make docs (make docs-only seems
broken) is invoked, it always regenerate all javadocs.
So by calling make zip-docs, with dependencies you recommended, it causes
javadoc to be regenerated.
It seems to me out of scope of this patch, but if you feel differently, I will
happily elaborate.
* Please don't use temporary directories outside the build output dir. Such
directories always risk
being left behind by failed builds. We need the build to only create files in
the designated output
dir.
fixed.
* --display-globaldots is not a good option to use in this context. It won't
work well with file
logging of the build and I doubt it's valid for all platforms we build on.
sure. Removed.
Thanx!
J.
/Erik
On 2016-03-29 18:24, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Hello Again!
Sorry for delay in reply.
There is webrev
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v1/
https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/oracle/jdk8/webrevs/zip-javadocs/v1/webrev.zip
with patch as was (moreover) agreed in this thread for *jdk8*
As I was studying the makefiles, I think I did not violated to much conditions
by this hunk of code:)
I thought that 8 will be much more simple, but at the end it evolved to same "find
all roots" as
discussed for 9 and modules.
The only thing I don't like in this patch is unsuitability of zip to zip
directories with stripped
path.
I went by pushd/popd but I had seen you like cd in make files more.
Thanx for any feedback!
J.
On 03/08/2016 03:50 PM, Erik Joelsson wrote:
I wouldn't go that far, but I won't have time to look into it for a while yet
at least.
/Erik
On 2016-03-08 15:34, Jiri Vanek wrote:
Ping?
Or is this going to be considered closed-wont "fix"?
Thanx!
J.
On 02/29/2016 04:24 PM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/26/2016 08:05 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/26/2016 03:49 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
On 02/25/2016 06:34 PM, Jonathan Gibbons wrote:
On 02/25/2016 09:23 AM, Jiri Vanek wrote:
I must be missing something. Dozens? Of varius runs of javadoc?
I thought that javadoc ending at the end in single drectory is one single
javadoc for java. If
you are referring to javadoc generated by "per module" then one jjoined zip is
enough for me.
Jiri,
If you accept the premise that javadoc writes one stylesheet.css file per run
of javadoc,
take a
look at the following list:
Then my goal will be to crate a trget, which takes
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/
and pack it to
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/javadoc.zip
It should contains also the "smaller api" you are mentioning below? If not,
then those should
appear in this zip too.
$ find build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/ -name
stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/dynalink/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/attach/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/javac/tree/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/jconsole/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/jpda/jdi/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/javadoc/doclet/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/javadoc/old/doclet/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/javadoc/old/taglet/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jdk/api/nashorn/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/api/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/nio/sctp/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/plugin/dom/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/security/jaas/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/security/smartcardio/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/security/jgss/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/management/extension/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/net/httpserver/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/net/socketoptions/spec/stylesheet.css
build/linux-x86_64-normal-server-release/images/docs/jre/api/accessibility/jaccess/spec/stylesheet.css
The "main"/"Java SE" javadoc bundle that most are aware of is the shortest
filename, in the
middle
of the list, but there are lots of other smaller APIs that get their own doc
bundle. You can
get at
most of them in released doc sets through the top-level "brick wall" page, or
by using your
favorite
search engine.
Hmm.. Do you have some? javadoc offline search is quite painful think. (Even
with new search in
9, which seems to have some troubles on local filesystem). The best search
engine I know is
(unluckily) https://github.com/judovana/JavadocOfflineSearch
The point of the preceding list was to say that each directory containing
stylesheet.css is the
root
of a separate, distinct, javadoc bundle. So the smaller APIs that get their
own bundle are
precisely the ones given in the preceding list, other than the main javadoc
bundle.
The point of the comment about the brick wall and search engines was to
indicate how most people
will find these doc bundles in normal use, when they don't have a cheat sheet
like the list
above.
yes I got that. But Then this compressed shattered javadoc needs more thoughts.
What is expected format of distribution?
I can imagine: web accessible, unapcked "all docs" and "zipepd "all docs".
But never several zips, or several directories.
What is what I'm missing behind this effort to deliver javadocs per-module?
As far as IDEs wanting to access javadoc bundles, I would expect that to make
all the docs
available, you would want to zip up *each* directory containing stylesheet.css
given in the
preceding list. If you just zip up the top API directory, sure, that will
include all the files,
but
the reality is that the IDE will likely not have any way of knowing about the
minor doc
bundles in
all jre/ and jdk/ directories and subdirectories.
Indeed, when you pack top level javadoc directroy as top level of archive (so
javadco will become
zipped1.zip!javadoc) then indeed, Netbeasn refuse to load it whole 9just few
parts)
However when you pack it that content of javadoc will be the top of the archive
(zipped2.zip!{api,jdk,jre,platform}) then NB loads it fine.
If even this is wrong, then as last approach is really to restructuralise docs
after theirs
generation/before zipping to structure where top level directory will the "one with
style"
dynalink/stylesheet.css
spec/stylesheet.css
tree/stylesheet.css
spec/stylesheet.css
jdi/stylesheet.css
doclet/stylesheet.css
nashorn/stylesheet.css
api/stylesheet.css
spec/stylesheet.css
dom/stylesheet.css
spec/stylesheet.css
spec/stylesheet.css
...
But looking to the occurences of "spec" There is something wrong with those
assumptions :)
As for indexing and viewing tools - They works fine with both zipepd1 and
zipped2 (but there is
not
much to try)
Seeing the impact of packaging, I think it is one more +1 to add this packing
target, so JDK's
javadoc is pacaked in known, "laodable" way.
Thanx!
J.
-- Jon
--
Thanx a lot!
J.
