Jakarta Servlet 4.0 apidocs

[arjantijms]

Signed-off-by: arjantijms [email protected]

Include the following in PR#2:

• Specification JavaDoc in the wombat/x.y/apidocs directory.

[dblevins]

Not sure if it's a showstopper, but we still have some "Java EE" references:

servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/AsyncContext.html:766: This method supports resource injection if the given <tt>clazz</tt> represents a Managed Bean. See the Java EE
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:1411: Managed Bean. See the Java EE platform and JSR 299 specifications for additional details about Managed Beans and
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:1496: if the given <tt>servletClass</tt> represents a Managed Bean. See the Java EE platform and JSR 299 specifications
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:1577: method supports resource injection if the given <tt>clazz</tt> represents a Managed Bean. See the Java EE
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:1678: See the Java EE platform and JSR 299 specifications for additional details about Managed Beans and resource
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:1800: This method supports resource injection if the given <tt>clazz</tt> represents a Managed Bean. See the Java EE
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:2032: See the Java EE platform and JSR 299 specifications for additional details about Managed Beans and resource
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:2138: Java EE platform and JSR 299 specifications for additional details about Managed Beans and resource injection.</div>
servlet/4.0/apidocs/javax/servlet/ServletContext.html:2182: This method supports resource injection if the given <tt>clazz</tt> represents a Managed Bean. See the Java EE

[bshannon]

Not sure if it's a showstopper, but we still have some "Java EE" references:

And some JSR 299 references.

[arjantijms]

I did all those things in jakartaee/servlet#247 and I assumed that when Greg wanted to redo that all, he indeed would redo it all.

[kwsutter]

Need a reference to the EFSL in the javadoc footer.

[arjantijms]

At the moment new PRs are being done to fix various Servlet issues. When that's done I'll re-stage and update this PR.

[starksm64]

@arjantijms are there more changes expected for this PR?

[arjantijms]

@arjantijms are there more changes expected for this PR?

I'm not 100% sure. I did the PRs for Servlet, but then as mentioned above Greg asked whether he could do them as project lead, which is a fair request, so my original PR was closed and Greg would continue redoing everything.

But after that Greg only did a small PR which wasn't complete, and thereafter things went pretty quiet.

[stuartwdouglas]

I have submitted:
jakartaee/servlet#260
and
jakartaee/servlet#259

This adds speclicense.html and removes the Java EE and JSR references.

[stuartwdouglas]

@starksm64 as my Servlet PR's only affect Javadoc's once these are merged do I need to re-stage the artifact and (and hence re-run the TCK etc), or is it sufficient to just update this PR with the new Javadocs?

The only real difference that this would make is that the -javadoc.jar artifacts that have been staged will be slightly different to the versions that are published here.

[arjantijms]

@stuartwdouglas

as my Servlet PR's only affect Javadoc's once these are merged do I need to re-stage the artifact and (and hence re-run the TCK etc),

I also restage and rerun the TCK after Javadoc changes, as the API is what we're ultimately testing here.

[starksm64]

@starksm64 as my Servlet PR's only affect Javadoc's once these are merged do I need to re-stage the artifact and (and hence re-run the TCK etc), or is it sufficient to just update this PR with the new Javadocs?

The only real difference that this would make is that the -javadoc.jar artifacts that have been staged will be slightly different to the versions that are published here.

The api jars do need to be restaged so that the javadoc artifact is in sync with the website content. Since this is updating the api jars as well, the TCK should be run just to verify nothing else has actually changed.

[arjantijms]

The api jars do need to be restaged so that the javadoc artifact is in sync with the website content.

I'll restaged them then.

[arjantijms]

Restaged:

• https://jenkins.eclipse.org/servlet/job/1_servlet-build-and-stage/18/console
• https://oss.sonatype.org/content/repositories/staging/jakarta/servlet/jakarta.servlet-api/4.0.3/

[starksm64]

I have created a PR to fix the remaining issue with the javadoc footer
arjantijms#1

[stuartwdouglas]

The footer was updated in master: jakartaee/servlet@55fbbf8

It looks like this PR has not been synched with the Javadoc changes

[arjantijms]

I have created a PR to fix the remaining issue with the javadoc footer
arjantijms#1

Thx, it's merged now.

[starksm64]

I have created a PR to fix the remaining issue with the javadoc footer
arjantijms#1

Thx, it's merged now.

I'm not seeing another commit show up on this pull request though, and the footer has not been updated?

[arjantijms]

I'm not seeing another commit show up on this pull request though, and the footer has not been updated?

I see, you did the PR to my master, not to my PR.

[starksm64]

I see, you did the PR to my master, not to my PR.

Sorry about that. I keep missing that the compare across forks switches back to master. I have created another PR against the servlet_apidocs branch.

[arjantijms]

@starksm64

Sorry about that. I keep missing that the compare across forks switches back to master. I have created another PR against the servlet_apidocs branch.

No worries, it seems to have worked now. I did had to force push the merge commit away, but otherwise all seems fine.

[starksm64]

No worries, it seems to have worked now. I did had to force push the merge commit away, but otherwise all seems fine.

It looked good for bit, but as soon as I looked at a link to the license on anything but the top docs, the link was broke. So I just pulled down the servlet-api, rebuilt the javadoc on the 4.0.3 branch after setting the copyright to just 2019, and this looks good everywhere. The arjantijms#3 is from a clean fork so it should just merge.

[dblevins]

@starksm64 don't forget to merge the apidocs