Qcn Write Tool Download |VERIFIED|

At Java Software, we have several guidelines that might make our documentation comments different than those of third party developers. Our documentation comments define the official Java Platform API Specification. To this end, our target audience is those who write Java compatibility tests, or conform or re-implement the Java platform, in addition to developers. We spend time and effort focused on specifying boundary conditions, argument ranges and corner cases rather than defining common programming terms, writing conceptual overviews, and including examples for developers.

Thus, there are commonly two different ways to write doc comments -- as API specifications, or as programming guide documentation. These two targets are described in the following sections. A staff with generous resources can afford to blend both into the same documentation (properly "chunked"); however, our priorities dictate that we give prime focus to writing API specifications in doc comments. This is why developers often need to turn to other documents, such as Java SE Technical Documentation and The Java Tutorials for programming guides.

Qcn Write Tool Download

Download File 🔥 https://fancli.com/2y2R4J 🔥

Ideally, the Java API Specification comprises all assertions required to do a clean-room implementation of the Java Platform for "write once, run anywhere" -- such that any Java applet or application will run the same on any implementation. This may include assertions in the doc comments plus those in any architectural and functional specifications (usually written in FrameMaker) or in any other document. This definition is a lofty goal and there is some practical limitation to how fully we can specify the API. The following are guiding principles we try to follow:

What separates API specifications from a programming guide are examples, definitions of common programming terms, certain conceptual overviews (such as metaphors), and descriptions of implementation bugs and workarounds. There is no dispute that these contribute to a developer's understanding and help a developer write reliable applications more quickly. However, because these do not contain API "assertions", they are not necessary in an API specification. You can include any or all of this information in documentation comments (and can include custom tags, handled by a custom doclet, to facilitate it). At Java Software, we consciously do not include this level of documentation in doc comments, and instead include either links to this information (links to the Java Tutorial and list of changes) or include this information in the same documentation download bundle as the API spec -- the JDK documentation bundle includes the API specs as well as demos, examples, and programming guides.

Code bugs are bugs in the implementation rather than in the API specification. Code bugs and their workarounds are often likewise distributed separately in a bug report. However, if the Javadoc tool is being used to generate documentation for a particular implementation, it would be quite useful to include this information in the doc comments, suitably separated as a note or by a custom tag (say @bug).

The doc comments for the Java platform API specification is owned programmers. However, they are edited by both programmers and writers. It is a basic premise that writers and programmers honor each other's capabilities and both contribute to the best doc comments possible. Often it is a matter of negotiation to determine who writes which parts of the documentation, based on knowledge, time, resources, interest, API complexity, and on the state of the implementation itself. But the final comments must be approved by the responsible engineer.

Ideally, the person designing the API would write the API specification in skeleton source files, with only declarations and doc comments, filling in the implementation only to satisfy the written API contract. The purpose of an API writer is to relieve the designer from some of this work. In this case, the API designer would write the initial doc comments using sparse language, and then the writer would review the comments, refine the content, and add tags.

If the doc comments are an API specification for re-implementors, and not simply a guide for developers, they should be written either by the programmer who designed and implemented the API, or by a API writer who is or has become a subject matter expert. If the implementation is written to spec but the doc comments are unfinished, a writer can complete the doc comments by inspecting the source code or writing programs that test the API. A writer might inspect or test for exceptions thrown, parameter boundary conditions, and for acceptance of null arguments. However, a much more difficult situation arises if the implementation is not written to spec. Then a writer can proceed to write an API specification only if they either know the intent of the designer (either through design meetings or through a separately-written design specification) or have ready access to the designer with their questions. Thus, it may be more difficult for a writer to write the documentation for interfaces and abstract classes that have no implementors.

On-line or hardcopy descriptions of the API, intended primarily for programmers writing in Java. These can be generated using the Javadoc tool or created some other way. An API specification is a particular kind of API document, as described above. An example of an API specification is the on-line Java Platform, Standard Edition 7 API Specification.

At Oracle, we have developed a tool for checking doc comments, called the Oracle Doc Check Doclet, or DocCheck. You run it on source code and it generates a report describing what style and tag errors the comments have, and recommends changes. We have tried to make its rules conform to the rules in this document.

The first sentence of each doc comment should be a summary sentence, containing a concise but complete description of the API item. This means the first sentence of each member, class, interface or package description. The Javadoc tool copies this first sentence to the appropriate member, class/interface or package summary. This makes it important to write crisp and informative initial sentences that can stand on their own.

In the third case, if a method m() in a given class implements a method in an interface, the Javadoc tool will generate a subheading "Specified by" in the documentation for m(), with a link to the method it is implementing.

In all three of these cases, if the method m() contains no doc comments or tags, the Javadoc tool will also copy the text of the method it is overriding or implementing to the generated documentation for m(). So if the documentation of the overridden or implemented method is sufficient, you do not need to add documentation for m(). If you add any documentation comment or tag to m(), the "Overrides" or "Specified by" subheading and link will still appear, but no text will be copied.

You can provide one @author tag, multiple @author tags, or no @author tags. In these days of the community process when development of new APIs is an open, joint effort, the JSR can be consider the author for new packages at the package level. For example, the new package java.nio has "@author JSR-51 Expert Group" at the package level. Then individual programmers can be assigned to @author at the class level. As this tag can only be applied at the overview, package and class level, the tag applies only to those who make significant contributions to the design or implementation, and so would not ordinarily include technical writers.

The @param tag is followed by the name (not data type) of the parameter, followed by a description of the parameter. By convention, the first noun in the description is the data type of the parameter. (Articles like "a", "an", and "the" can precede the noun.) An exception is made for the primitive int, where the data type is usually omitted. Additional spaces can be inserted between the name and description so that the descriptions line up in a block. Dashes or other punctuation should not be inserted before the description, as the Javadoc tool inserts one dash.

The @deprecated description in the first sentence should at least tell the user when the API was deprecated and what to use as a replacement. Only the first sentence will appear in the summary section and index. Subsequent sentences can also explain why it has been deprecated. When generating the description for a deprecated API, the Javadoc tool moves the @deprecated text ahead of the description, placing it in italics and preceding it with a bold warning: "Deprecated". An @see tag (for Javadoc 1.1) or {@link} tag (for Javadoc 1.2 or later) should be included that points to the replacement method:

The Javadoc standard doclet displays a "Since" subheading with the string argument as its text. This subheading appears in the generated text only in the place corresponding to where the @since tag appears in the source doc comments (The Javadoc tool does not proliferate it down the hierarchy).

The Javadoc tool generates documentation for default constructors. When it documents such a constructor, Javadoc leaves its description blank, because a default constructor can have no doc comment. The question then arises: How do you add a doc comment for a default constructor? The simple answer is that it is not possible -- and, conveniently, our programming convention is to avoid default constructors. (We considered but rejected the idea that the Javadoc tool should generate a default comment for default constructors.)

Good programming practice dictates that code should never make use of default constructors in public APIs: All constructors should be explicit. That is, all default constructors in public and protected classes should be turned into explicit constructor declarations with the appropriate access modifier. This explicit declaration also gives you a place to write documentation comments. ff782bc1db