The changes to classes in the security component look fine. One question
I have is about the change to javax/xml/crypto/dsig/Manifest.java. Was
there a specific error here or did you just want to make this cleaner by
removing all of the html special character handling? The reason I ask is
that there are many other classes in javax.xml.crypto which have similar
javadoc sections, so I am wondering if they have similar issues.
Thanks,
Sean
On 06/10/2013 06:31 AM, Alan Bateman wrote:
About 8 months ago I tried an early build of doclint [1] and used it to
fix up a bunch issues at the time [2]. It's been awhile, so I decided to
try out the latest version to see how it has progressed. All I can say
is "Yikes". The good news is that they reported against the original
source and that makes it easy when compared to tools that validate the
generated html.
I decided to fix up a few issues, mostly syntax (escaping of > and < in
particular) and a few reference issues that were missed the last time
(or are new). There are thousands of other issues for anyone that wants
to jump in.
I've put the webrev with the changes here:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~alanb/8016217/webrev/
In total this fixes ~500 issues, although 270 of those were coming from
java.sql.DatabaseMetaData due to the number of un-escaped usages of
"=>". In many cases, the changes are simply to use {@code ..} or replace
<code> with {@code ...}. It is tempting to just do a global replace on
existing <code></code> usages (would fixing up content that is escaped
of course).
I've run specdiff on the before & after to check that I didn't mess
anything up. One obvious difference is that code examples that use
generics now have the type parameters going through to the generated
javadoc.
The webrev touches many areas but as the changes are trivial, I don't
need a reviewer from every area.
-Alan.
[1] http://openjdk.java.net/jeps/172
[2] http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jdk8/tl/jdk/rev/39cbe256c3d1
