My preference would be to move all the prose from package-info.java to module-info.java.
At the time I wrote the documentation, I didn't consider module-info as it wasn’t picked up by javadoc back then, so the entry point into the documentation was the top-level packaage’s package-info. The intent of all of it, though, is to act as a comprehensive overview of Dynalink. It works best as a single unit of prose. My recommendation would be to move all of text in package-info to module-info (presumably, module-info also can contain links etc.), and only leave that one-sentence description you just added in package-info. Thanks, Attila. > On 03 Jan 2017, at 16:04, Sundararajan Athijegannathan > <sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Fixed. Updated webrev: http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8172183/webrev.01/ > > Thanks, > -Sundar > > On 03/01/17, 7:37 PM, Sundararajan Athijegannathan wrote: >> Thanks Attila. >> >> I'll fix that article. Can I consider your comment as a review? >> >> Thanks, >> -Sundar >> >> On 03/01/17, 6:38 PM, Attila Szegedi wrote: >>> + * Contains interfaces and classes that are used to link a {@code >>> invokedynamic} call site. >>> >>> should be “an” invokedynamic call site. >>> >>> Attila. >>> >>>> On 03 Jan 2017, at 06:17, Sundararajan >>>> Athijegannathan<sundararajan.athijegannat...@oracle.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Please review http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~sundar/8172183/webrev.00/ for >>>> https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8172183 >>>> >>>> Piggybacking couple of README cleanups in nashorn repo. >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> -Sundar
