[gwt-contrib] Re: review request: add missing packages to javadoc

2009-01-05 Thread John Tamplin
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Freeland Abbott gwt.team.fabb...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 I waffled around OOPHM, but decided I shouldn't add it yet.


There isn't anything for OOPHM in user, so I am not sure what would be
documented for it.

-- 
John A. Tamplin
Software Engineer (GWT), Google

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



[gwt-contrib] Re: review request: add missing packages to javadoc

2009-01-05 Thread Emily Crutcher
Can we automatically include all shared  and client (excluding impl)
packages instead of manually listing them out? It seems like that may be
less of a maintenance headache at least for the user package organization.



On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Freeland Abbott gwt.team.fabb...@gmail.com
 wrote:

 Two semantically-equivalent patches attached: I think we want the following
 new packages in the user javadoc set, but they weren't there.

- com.google.gwt.event.dom.client
- com.google.gwt.event.logical.shared
- com.google.gwt.event.shared
- com.google.gwt.debug.client
- com.google.gwt.datepicker.client

 I waffled around OOPHM, but decided I shouldn't add it yet.

 The vertical patch is worse for diff'ing today, but breaks the package
 lists to be one-per-line for easier to manipulation later.  That's the one I
 want to submit, the other is there for easier diff this time.

 Relative to trunk r4375.



 



-- 
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
binary, and those who don't

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



[gwt-contrib] Re: review request: add missing packages to javadoc

2009-01-05 Thread Freeland Abbott
I'd rather have a blacklist (with regexp matches for e.g. .impl packages),
personally... but yes, it can be done; no, it's not entirely trivial.
Javadoc itself will let you explicitly list packages, list root packages
with recursive descent, or list files.  There's no exclusion, so we'd have
to do it with Ant.  But it seems an Ant fileset (which does allow exclusion)
and the per-file listing would work, if stuffed into an @argfile (which
javadoc also supports)...

The other question is whether we actually lose by javadoc'ing everything, or
maybe everything but **/impl/**.  We're already, I think, doc'ing some *Impl
classes (i.e. impl classes, but not packages, such as CaptionPanelImpl)...
we also exclude things like user/src/com/google/gwt/user/tools
(ProjectCreator, etc) and most of the dev hierarchy as being uninteresting
to users, but might also want a contributor set of javadoc...



On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:44 AM, Emily Crutcher e...@google.com wrote:

 Can we automatically include all shared  and client (excluding impl)
 packages instead of manually listing them out? It seems like that may be
 less of a maintenance headache at least for the user package organization.




 On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Freeland Abbott 
 gwt.team.fabb...@gmail.com wrote:

 Two semantically-equivalent patches attached: I think we want the
 following new packages in the user javadoc set, but they weren't there.

- com.google.gwt.event.dom.client
- com.google.gwt.event.logical.shared
- com.google.gwt.event.shared
- com.google.gwt.debug.client
- com.google.gwt.datepicker.client

 I waffled around OOPHM, but decided I shouldn't add it yet.

 The vertical patch is worse for diff'ing today, but breaks the package
 lists to be one-per-line for easier to manipulation later.  That's the one I
 want to submit, the other is there for easier diff this time.

 Relative to trunk r4375.







 --
 There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand
 binary, and those who don't

 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
http://groups.google.com/group/Google-Web-Toolkit-Contributors
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---