On Fri, 12 Jan 2024 17:47:06 GMT, Pavel Rappo <pra...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Jonathan Gibbons has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains seven additional
>> commits since the last revision:
>>
>> - Merge with upstream/master
>> - Merge remote-tracking branch 'upstream/master' into
>> 8298405.doclet-markdown-v3
>> - Address review comments
>> - Fix whitespace
>> - Improve handling of embedded inline taglets
>> - Customize support for Markdown headings
>> - JDK-8298405: Support Markdown in Documentation Comments
>
> src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/api/JavacTrees.java line
> 992:
>
>> 990:
>> 991: private static boolean isMarkdownFile(FileObject fo) {
>> 992: return fo.getName().endsWith(".md");
>
> I wonder why you decided to (re)implement those methods using file extension
> matching. Is it because we don't want to introduce anything Markdown-related
> to this method that was used to implement `isHtmlFile` previously?
>
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/8eb4e7e07e9211aabcb0f22696e9c572dac7a59f/src/jdk.compiler/share/classes/com/sun/tools/javac/file/BaseFileManager.java#L489-L498
Musing on this more.
Can/should we, without introducing probably unwelcome `Kind.MD` to
`javax.tools.JavaFileObject.Kind`, teach javac to recognise `package.md`
similarly to how it recognises legacy `package.html`? If we are aiming for
Markdown to be a drop in replacement for traditional javadoc comments, we might
want to go the extra mile.
I'm pleased to see that Markdown `-overview` files work just fine.
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16388#discussion_r1459349927
