JDK-4078855 : javadoc template: Keywords "synchronized" + "native" shouldn't appear in HTML si
  • Type: Bug
  • Component: tools
  • Sub-Component: javadoc(tool)
  • Affected Version: 1.2.0
  • Priority: P2
  • Status: Closed
  • Resolution: Fixed
  • OS: solaris_2.5
  • CPU: sparc
  • Submitted: 1997-09-13
  • Updated: 2014-05-05
  • Resolved: 1999-01-19
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
1.2.0 1.2beta2Fixed
Related Reports
Relates :  
JDK-4078860 - API doc comments should describe the concurrency semantics of classes & methods
Description
Javadoc tool should be modified so it does not print the keywords "synchronized"
or "native" in the method signatures.

This javadoc bug has a corollary doc bug 4078860, whereby the class and method descriptions should be beefed up, as follows.

It's important for the developer to know whether it's safe for multiple threads
to operate on an object concurrently,  However, this synchronization can be
done either in public methods or in private methods, and the Java Platform API
spec should not declare one to be preferred over the other.  A licensee should
be able to achieve synchronization internally if they wish.  

Therefore, the general description of a class should mention whether the class is thread-safe or not.  Individual method descriptions that are exceptions should mention that they are exceptions.
Comments
CONVERTED DATA BugTraq+ Release Management Values COMMIT TO FIX: generic FIXED IN: 1.2beta2 INTEGRATED IN: 1.2beta2 VERIFIED IN: 1.2beta4
14-06-2004
EVALUATION This is important to fix. robert.field@Eng 1997-10-06 Fixed in new javadoc, use backward compatibility flag '-X1.1' if you want this problem to reappear. robert.field@Eng 1997-11-25
06-10-1997