Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

javadoc contains unsupported extensions #898

Closed
pshipton opened this issue Jan 8, 2018 · 4 comments
Closed

javadoc contains unsupported extensions #898

pshipton opened this issue Jan 8, 2018 · 4 comments

Comments

@pshipton
Copy link
Member

pshipton commented Jan 8, 2018

The javadoc created as part of the OpenJ9 build, found in build/<platform>/docs, contains extensions which are not supported on OpenJ9.

  • OpenJDK management extensions, com.sun.management

See also ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk8#21

@pshipton pshipton changed the title javadoc contains unsupported features javadoc contains unsupported extensions Jan 8, 2018
@lumpfish
Copy link
Contributor

lumpfish commented Aug 8, 2019

The current openj9 build creates javadoc for the com.sun.management package in docs/jre/api/management/extension.

@pshipton - are you expecting the javadoc for com.ibm.lang.management to replace the com.sun.management javadoc in docs/jre/api/management/extension or that it be added as a package under docs/platform/management as specified in ibmruntimes/openj9-openjdk-jdk8#20?

@pshipton
Copy link
Member Author

@lumpfish the non-applicable to OpenJ9 com.sun.management javadoc must be removed. The Openj9 com.ibm.lang.management interfaces should be added as this package. Some of the OpenJ9 implementation (specifically GarbageCollectorMXBean, OperatingSystemMXBean, UnixOperatingSystemMXBean) implement the com.sun.management interfaces, and this needs to be reflected in the javadoc.

@pshipton
Copy link
Member Author

Some of the OpenJ9 implementation (specifically GarbageCollectorMXBean, OperatingSystemMXBean, UnixOperatingSystemMXBean) implement the com.sun.management interfaces, and this needs to be reflected in the javadoc.

I expect these OpenJDK interface classes can just remain as part of the javadoc generation.

@pshipton
Copy link
Member Author

pshipton commented Jan 8, 2020

@pshipton pshipton closed this as completed Jan 8, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants