On Tue, 19 Apr 2022 21:04:04 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <hann...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This is the second of two PRs to enhance JavaDoc search, it is based on the 
>> first one (#8185).
>> 
>> It adds a standalone search page (search.html) along with its own script 
>> file (search-page.js). This PR is very similar to the last prototype I 
>> uploaded and demoed, the changes are mostly tweaks to the markup, style 
>> sheets and text. 
>> 
>> JDK API docs rendered with this patch can be viewed and tested here 
>> (top-level files only, updated on April 20th):
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8248863/api.02/
>> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~hannesw/8248863/api.02/search.html
>
> Hannes Wallnöfer has updated the pull request incrementally with two 
> additional commits since the last revision:
> 
>  - Use different max results values for popup and page search
>  - Fix search link height

OK.

For the record, I note @hns gave us a walkthrough of the new JavaScript code,. 
One general result from that was a desire for more comments ...  at a 
high-level for a description of the general search algorithm, at a medium level 
for some of the more interesting functions and occasionally down at the detail 
level, when the code is not obviously self-documenting, such as in the logic to 
build the regular expressions for the search.  It would also help to note 
somewhere that the search is on a very specific dataset (the search index files 
generated by the doclet) and that we should document the format of those files 
somewhere. Finally, we discussed the idea to "partially minify" the JavaScript 
files, to strip out comments and unnecessary whitespace, so that there is no 
inhibition of the amount of comments that might be added and to reduce the 
download cost/time for end users. This processing could maybe be done in the 
makefiles at build time.

Comments and minifying the file can be done in a followup PR.

Great work.

-------------

Marked as reviewed by jjg (Reviewer).

PR: https://git.openjdk.java.net/jdk/pull/8226

Reply via email to