Loenko, Mikhail Y wrote: > Thanks for accepting the contribution > > >>There's a bit of things that come out of this, like the >>"com.intel.drl.spec_ref" javadoc tag that we should convert, and such. > > > What would be the best for those javadocs? We can have 3 possible > options: > 1. Copy-paste from the spec. Not sure it is legal
This one definitely has to be out. The Sun JavaDoc is a copyrighted/licensed work so making a verbatim copy is unacceptable. > 2. Reword the spec. More likely to be legal As I see it, the JavaDoc fulfils (at least) two purposes. It embodies the java spec (i.e. the definition of the standard library's behaviour), and it is the principal developer documentation (i.e. how to use the library). We do not want to change the specification in any way, but can enhance the usability of the documentation to developers. For example, it would IMHO be wrong to specify the behaviour of a method with more/less restrictions than the original reference javadoc, because that implies that developers can make assumptions on one implementation that they cannot on the other. However, it is reasonable to give more examples, usecases, even performance, threading guidelines, etc. that do not change the functional specification. So I'd say writing some JavaDoc, that was neither a direct copy of the original, nor 'enhancing' the specification, can provide value to developers. > 3. Replace the tag with a different one and provide taglet to build the > doc from the Harmony sources and Sun's spec. If I understand this correctly, then I don't see how this is substantially different to option (1)? Whether it is a human that does the cut-n-paste into the Harmony release, or a doclet, the result includes somebody else's work. Regards, Tim > Currently IBM's contribution seems to have #2. Does anyone have an > opinion? > > Thanks, > Mikhail Loenko > Intel Middleware Products Division > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: Geir Magnusson Jr [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Sent: Friday, December 30, 2005 10:48 PM >>To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >>Subject: Re: [RESULT] ( Was Re: [VOTE] Accept JIRA contribution > > HARMONY-16 (Intel's contrib of > >>security code for classlib)) >> >> >> >>Tim Ellison wrote: >> >>>Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote: >>><snip> >>> >>>>I'll finish moving to SVN and we'll put into the classlib tree, I > > suppose. > >>> >>>Great. Thanks again Mikhail and the team! >>> >>>I suggest you either put it into the classlib tree at >>>"classlib/java-src/security2" or leave it in the sandbox, then we can >>>merge it into the existing security structure without breaking the > > world. > >>I'll go for the former and try to whip it into common shape, and we can >>then decide how we do this - drop the existing security if security2 is >>a superset, or merge. >> >>There's a bit of things that come out of this, like the >>"com.intel.drl.spec_ref" javadoc tag that we should convert, and such. >> >>Also will give me a good change to frame out the test infra. >> >> >> >>>Regards, >>>Tim >>> > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
