JDK-4359386 : stddoclet: Include package info when passing in source filenames (*.java)
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: tools
  • Sub-Component: javadoc(tool)
  • Affected Version: 1.1.7,1.2.0
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: generic,solaris_2.6
  • CPU: generic,sparc
  • Submitted: 2000-08-03
  • Updated: 2014-05-05
  • Resolved: 2001-07-13
The Version table provides details related to the release that this issue/RFE will be addressed.

Unresolved : Release in which this issue/RFE will be addressed.
Resolved: Release in which this issue/RFE has been resolved.
Fixed : Release in which this issue/RFE has been fixed. The release containing this fix may be available for download as an Early Access Release or a General Availabitlity Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
1.4.0 beta2Fixed
Related Reports
Duplicate :  
Duplicate :  
Description
When passing in source filenames (rather than package names) on the command
line, the generated web pages do not contain a list of packages, a package page,
or package.html.  This request is to include this information, the same as if 
the user had passed in a list of package names.  Only the specified classes 
would be documented with their own class pages -- unspecified classes would
not be documented.  

For example, say class C belongs to package p, and C.java is passed in with
"javadoc C.java".  Package p and class p.C would be documented.  
Unspecified classes that belong to package p would remain undocumented.

(See the email trail in "Comments")

Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: merlin-beta2 FIXED IN: merlin-beta2 INTEGRATED IN: merlin-beta2 VERIFIED IN: merlin-rc1
2004-06-14

EVALUATION I feel this is an important enhancement, and many developers have requested it. doug.kramer@Eng 2000-12-08 Updated the synopsis and description to be more accurate, in that it should include all the package info, not just the package list. doug.kramer@Eng 2001-06-29 Note that this possibly requires us to handle the unnamed package when you pass in a .java file with no package declaration. How about if we just add the word "<unnamed>" to the top (or bottom) of the list of packages? Changed from an RFE to a bug. doug.kramer@Eng 2001-06-29 This bug has been fixed. Location of fix: IndexBuilder.java AbstractPackageWriter.java HtmlStandardWriter.java PackageIndexFrameWriter.java jamie.ho@Eng 2001-06-29 I have refined this fix to handle classes in unnamed packages. A link with the lable <unnamed package> now appears at the top of the packge list when classes in unnamed packages are specified on the command line. jamie.ho@Eng 2001-07-05
2001-07-05

PUBLIC COMMENTS This bug has been fixed. When .java filess are passed to the standard doclet, it generates the proper indices and package pages that lists only the classes documented. jamie.ho@Eng 2001-06-29
2001-06-29