JDK-4874845 : Non public superclass mentioned in inherited javadoc
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: tools
  • Sub-Component: javadoc(tool)
  • Affected Version: 5.0
  • Priority: P3
  • Status: Resolved
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: solaris_7
  • CPU: sparc
  • Submitted: 2003-06-05
  • Updated: 2014-05-05
  • Resolved: 2003-11-23
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
5.0 b30Fixed
Related Reports
Relates :  
Relates :  
Description
I have a non public superclass which provides shared javadoc for two subclasses. The javadoc produced says "Description copied from class:..." but it should not do that when the superclass is not public. 

It also shows the non-public superclass in the hierarchy at the top of the page for the class.

I have a non public superclass which provides shared javadoc for two subclasses. The javadoc produced says "Description copied from class:..." but it should not do that when the superclass is not public. 

It also shows the non-public superclass in the hierarchy at the top of the page for the class.

Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: tiger-beta FIXED IN: tiger-beta INTEGRATED IN: tiger-b30 tiger-beta
2004-06-14

CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: tiger-beta FIXED IN: tiger-beta INTEGRATED IN: tiger-b30 tiger-beta
2004-06-14

PUBLIC COMMENTS -
2004-06-10

PUBLIC COMMENTS -
2004-06-10

EVALUATION Name: dk30142 Date: 06/05/2003 Accepted This bug is related to 4780441: Incorrectly documents inherited members from package-private class ###@###.### 2003-10-29 This current bug report essentially asks to undo the fix for 4780441. Please see that other report for the reasons that it's doing what it's doing. Documenting a method as being declared in one class when it's really declared in another class potentially creates spec conformance problems. It's possible to tell at runtime which methods are directly declared by a class, and our implementation would no longer conform to the spec. ###@###.### 2003-11-05 Re-committing to tiger-beta ###@###.### 2003-11-05 Fixed. Non-public superclasses are no longer mentioned in the javadoc at all. It is now documented that StringBuilder extends Object. The members inherited from AbstractStringBuilder are documented in StringBuilder as though they were declared in StringBuilder. There is absolutely no mention of AbstractStringBuilder in the documentation. ###@###.### 2003-11-15
2003-11-15

EVALUATION Name: dk30142 Date: 06/05/2003 Accepted This bug is related to 4780441: Incorrectly documents inherited members from package-private class ###@###.### 2003-10-29 This current bug report essentially asks to undo the fix for 4780441. Please see that other report for the reasons that it's doing what it's doing. Documenting a method as being declared in one class when it's really declared in another class potentially creates spec conformance problems. It's possible to tell at runtime which methods are directly declared by a class, and our implementation would no longer conform to the spec. ###@###.### 2003-11-05 Re-committing to tiger-beta ###@###.### 2003-11-05 Fixed. Non-public superclasses are no longer mentioned in the javadoc at all. It is now documented that StringBuilder extends Object. The members inherited from AbstractStringBuilder are documented in StringBuilder as though they were declared in StringBuilder. There is absolutely no mention of AbstractStringBuilder in the documentation. ###@###.### 2003-11-15
2003-11-15