Am 09.04.2021 um 17:22 schrieb Jonathan Gibbons <jonathan.gibb...@oracle.com>: > > Hannes, > > Reading your email, and the comments about the number of tables, reminds me > of the suggestion to merge most of the tables (all those for different kinds > of classes and interfaces) into a single tabbed table, as is now becoming > more prevalent through the rest of the output. This would simplify the > package summary page to two(?) tables, one for "related packages" (no tabs) > and one for "classes and interfaces" (with tabs for the kind) > > This is not meant to invalidate the general work you have done to improve the > code in Navigation, but it might simplify the use of the new code. The > package sub-nav would have 3(?) entries, for Description, Related, > Classes-and-Interfaces >
Excellent idea! I wonder how this didn’t occur to me while working on the code. I’m not worried about the work I’ve done, as it will only reduce the number of links/ids. Should this be done as part of this change, or filed as separate issue? Hannes > -- Jon > > On 4/9/21 7:29 AM, Hannes Wallnöfer wrote: >> This adds a feature to add sub-navigation links to the package summary page, >> but ended up more like a refactoring of the code to generate sub-navigation >> links. The reason for this is that generation of these links was highly >> idiosyncratic. Every writer class that wanted to create sub-nav links >> deposited something of itself in the `Navigation` instance which was then >> responsible for generating these links. The new code introduces a >> `Navigation.SubNavLinks` interface that allows writers to provide a list of >> links into their page content. >> >> As for the new feature in the package summary page itself, I chose an >> approach that is a bit different from the one we use for other types of >> pages. Instead of displaying the inactive label instead of the link when a >> section is not present on the page, only the active links are displayed. The >> reason for this is that the package summary page contains so many potential >> summary tables that the sub-nav area gets quite crowded if they are all >> shown. Just showing the actually present pieces looked better to me. >> >> Like in other sub-nav sections, the link labels sometimes use abbreviated >> terms such as "RELATED" instead of "RELATED PACKAGES" and "ENUMS" instead of >> "ENUM CLASSES". The full list of potential package sub-nav links is as >> follows: >> >> Package: Description | Related | Interfaces | Classes | Enums | Records >> | Exceptions | Errors | Annotations >> >> An important implementation note is that I moved the code to compute package >> summary contents from `PackageSummaryBuilder` to `PackageWriterImpl`. The >> reason for this is that the contents are required to determine which links >> to create, and I didn't want to re-compute this information that was >> previously computed on the fly in the builder class. The various summary >> items are now stored in collection fields in the writer class. >> >> I have tried to add all the new properties and constants in a sensible >> place, which usually means alphabetic order within the sub-group of related >> entries. >> >> I chose to keep the markup structure of the package summary page mostly >> unchanged, adding only `id` attributes to the existing `<li>` elements for >> each summary table. I decided against adding `class` attributes as well as >> it seems very unlikely to me that somebody would want to apply different >> styles to the various summary tables. Even without them, it could be done >> using the `id`s. >> >> ------------- >> >> Commit messages: >> - JDK-8263507: Simplify list creation >> - JDK-8263507: Rename some methods and add some docs >> - JDK-8263507: Add links to page sections in sub-navigation of package >> summaries >> >> Changes: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3413/files >> Webrev: https://webrevs.openjdk.java.net/?repo=jdk&pr=3413&range=00 >> Issue: https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8263507 >> Stats: 1106 lines in 24 files changed: 525 ins; 480 del; 101 mod >> Patch: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3413.diff >> Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk pull/3413/head:pull/3413 >> >> PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/3413
