hi,
that's right - since it was a pretty long thread which also includes other
topics, i just linked the first message as a starting point.
anyway, does someone know a nice and correct wiki about such topics? so we
could link it in our wiki.
regards,
gerhard
2008/12/9 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PRO
Hi Simon,
Gerhard link is correct although not including the whole post, one of the
reply from Matthias. Maybe we should raise the issue on legal-discuss? At
worst, your way of writing the doc sounds very reasonable as well. My team
wouldn't need the go away for a while part however since it's two
Hi,
I doubt very much that simply retyping javadoc from the spec is legally
sufficient to permit non-Aapache-licensed text to be included in an
Apache-licensed file.
Note that I was *asking* whether copying was allowed; hopefully there is
something in the spec licenses that *does* permit it. But
p.s. I know that 1.1 and 1.2 don't have any JavaDoc copied, actually it only
refer to the official one online which isn't very useful for offline users
nor those working directly looking at the code. Keeping JavaDoc out is of
course a valid option as well if the community wishes it, but it also
imp
Hi Simon K.,
We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually retyping
the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since it's not copied
directly it seems it's allowed.
~ Simon
On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Hmm..by the wa
hello simon,
i already brought up this topic at [1]
did it happen again?
if so:
maybe it's helpful to write a general e-mail to the dev list and/or a wiki
about this topic.
regards,
gerhard
[1]
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--JSF-2.0--Package-structure-for-Facelets-integration-p20798004.html
20
That and rewriting any XML schema by hand. That was a funny one.
Bruno
2008/12/9 Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
> myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
> descriptions would definitely be copyrigh
Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission
would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
licensed under the Apache lic
+1
Simon Kitching schrieb:
> I would also prefer to change the checkstyle rules to ignore missing @param
> and @return comments.
>
> Sometimes params really are obvious enough not to be documented, and in some
> other cases it is better to document them as part of the main method
> description r
I wouldn't change the CheckStyle rules to ignore missing @params. Why?
Because often you (well, probably not you, but someone else) changes a
param name but forgets to change the corresponding JavaDoc. CheckStyle
is a good way to warn you about this.
@returns are most of the time redundant since t
I would also prefer to change the checkstyle rules to ignore missing @param
and @return comments.
Sometimes params really are obvious enough not to be documented, and in some
other cases it is better to document them as part of the main method
description rather than a separate tag. So blindly e
To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and @return, which
is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and doesn't
specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it better to match
the official API or to make checkstyle happy?
On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM,
12 matches
Mail list logo
