Hi Sunny, As far as I can tell, Doxygen seems to work just fine with Javadoc-style comments. So comments could still be written using Javadoc markup (keeping Eclipse content-assist happy) while leaving the way open for Doxygen to be the chosen documentation tool for Harmony.
Best regards, George ________________________________________ George C. Harley Sunny Chan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 26/01/2006 22:11 Please respond to harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org To harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org cc Subject Re: javadoc vs. doxygen Hi all, I am more of a lurker :-) but I have an opinion on this matter. If I were to develop a java class library I would stick to Javadoc. Remember, things like Eclipse have support for javadoc embedded source code - so that when you use Eclipse's excellent content assist feature it will display the information about the classes/method/etc. I would be really annoyed if Harmony class library use Doxygen and stop Eclipse content assist from working Thanks, Sunny Andrey Chernyshev wrote: > There was a long discussion about writing (or non-writing) the javadoc > comments for Java class libraries. I think the another interesting > question is: what tools do we use for generating documentation for > code at Harmony? > > Initial class libraries contribution suggested to use the doxygen system for > creating documentation for Java code. Security contribution then > suggested an idea of using custom tags for referencing the original > J2SE spec. > > Regardless of whether custom javadoc tags idea is good or bad, I > wonder how it could be easily implemented using the doxygen. While the > doxygen may seem to be more universal approach because it covers both > C/C++ and Java code, I'm not sure if it has an internal API similar to > the doclet API supported by the javadoc tool. > > For example, one can use ALIASES in doxygen configuration to define a > custom tag and then expand it to some static text. In the same > scenario, javadoc would allow to generate some more sophisticated text > depending on the current class, method or whatever other information > extracted from the Java source file where the tag was found. > > Another note is that default javadoc-produced documentation and > doxygen-produced documentation have different "look-and-feel". > > What people think, do we need javadoc for documenting Java sources, or > we can always live with the doxygen? > If we choose to use javadoc, whether it makes sense to develop our own > version of this tool at Harmony? > > > Thank you, > Andrey Chernyshev > Intel Middleware Products Division
