> > > Could you fairly easily make a list of all the
> > > places (classes, interfaces, methods, fields)
> > > where the MIF doclet depends on or calls the
> > > com.sun.tools.doclets or
> > > com.sun.tools.doclets.standard?
> > Here are some classes that would belong in
> > that API:
> > - All of the classes and interfaces in
> > com.sun.tools.doclets
> > - The following classes in
> > com.sun.tools.doclets.standard:
> > Extern.java
> > Group.java
> > Should we just use com.sun.tools.doclets?
> > Many of the files in that
> > package need to be cleaned up.
> Should Extern.java and Group.java be moved up into
> the doclets package?
Yes, I think Extern.java and Group.java should
definitely be in the API. They are very useful
classes. Unfortunately, I had to copy both of them
from the standard doclet to the mif doclet to avoid
The standard doclet has always been bundled with the javadoc
tool, so the versions moved in lock-step. Therefore, it has
been unnecessary to ensure the doclet is backward compatible.
Nobody tries running the 1.4 doclet with the 1.3 javadoc.
However, for unbundled doclets (MIF, doccheck, localization,
all third-party doclets), it's necessary to run them on
different versions of javadoc and have backward compatibility.
> The MIF doclet does call the new method to get the
> static final constant. However, it only makes the
> method call if -constantvaluespage is used. This option
> should only be used with 1.4 or higher. If we use it
> with 1.3 or lower, the doclet will crash.
> When we implement the "builder", maybe we can
> carefully write the code so that no new Doclet API
> methods are called when an older version of Javadoc is
> run. This is the strategy I am using to make doccheck
> backward compatible.
We have been cleared by the Tiger planning committee to pursue
this feature. Demoted to BUG status, as this is the easiest way
to fix all of the bugs in the MIF doclet. See "Comments" field
for more details.