JDK-4587494 : Constant field values for boolean Data-Types don't use true and false
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: tools
  • Sub-Component: javadoc(tool)
  • Affected Version: 1.4.0
  • Priority: P4
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: generic
  • CPU: generic
  • Submitted: 2001-12-10
  • Updated: 2002-06-27
  • Resolved: 2002-03-08
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 Availability Release.

To download the current JDK release, click here.
Other
1.4.1 hopperFixed
Description

Name: rmT116609			Date: 12/10/2001


java version "1.4.0-beta3"
Java(TM) 2 Runtime Environment, Standard Edition (build 1.4.0-be
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 1.4.0-beta3-b84, mixed mode)

When doing a javadoc on a file like the following:

-- Test.java --
public class Test
{
  public static final boolean TRUE_VALUE=true;
  public static final boolean FALSE_VALUE=false;
}
-- Test.java --

using the default doclet with a simple "javadoc Test.java". The file constant-values.html 
shows 0 and 1 as the values of the fields TRUE_VALUE and FALSE_VALUE.

According to the Java Language Specification the Bolean Literal values are

BooleanLiteral: one of  true false
(Review ID: 137056) 
======================================================================
Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: hopper FIXED IN: hopper INTEGRATED IN: hopper VERIFIED IN: hopper-beta
14-06-2004
PUBLIC COMMENTS The new methods in the javadoc API for accessing the value of constant fields did not return correct results for booleans. Instead of returning the correct boolean value, they returned "0" for false and "1" for true. Javadoc now correctly returns the value of boolean constants.
10-06-2004
EVALUATION Definitely a bug. ###@###.### 2001-12-10
10-12-2001