On Tue, 9 Sep 2025 10:16:42 GMT, Hannes Wallnöfer <[email protected]> wrote:
> Please review a change to fix a regression when documenting inherited JavaFX > property members after > [JDK-8350920](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8350920). The wrong > `PropertyHelper` instance was used to initialize synthetic doc comments on > property members, leading to potentially missing comments. > > Since using the correct `PropertyHelper` instance would have led to property > info being computed multiple times (previously it was only needed in > `ClassWriter`), I added caching of `PropertyHelper` instances in the > enclosing `PropertyUtils` instance. In the process I also removed some > unnecessary fields from `PropertyHelper`, made the property member map lazily > initialized, and cleaned up code and doc comments in `PropertyUtils` a bit. > > The test adds a new subclass to a property-holding class in `TestJavaFX` to > make sure inherited property members are documented correctly and no warnings > are issued for missing synthetic doc comments. src/jdk.javadoc/share/classes/jdk/javadoc/internal/doclets/toolkit/PropertyUtils.java line 215: > 213: */ > 214: public static class PropertyHelper { > 215: private Map<Element, Element> classPropertiesMap = null; What's the added value of having this lazily initialized? ------------- PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/27168#discussion_r2336232003
