My involvement was with what has now become tucked away in a zip file
called alexandria-legacy. At this time Alexandria was an ant build
script with some ant extensions. Most of these are now part of ant.
Alexandra's main goal was to allow people to access javadoc and xrefed
source code. The build
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005, J Aaron Farr wrote:
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:22:35 -0500 (EST), Henri Yandell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Gump is another possibility. I noticed the other day that they have
javadoc in the gump.xml.
Trouble with having this Gump driven is that Gump is all about
building the lates
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 12:22:35 -0500 (EST), Henri Yandell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Gump is another possibility. I noticed the other day that they have
> javadoc in the gump.xml.
Trouble with having this Gump driven is that Gump is all about
building the latest snapshot, not about building a spe
My negatives for Alexandria:
* Seems large and yet dead
* Has lofty goals, whereas the below is very basic
Gump is another possibility. I noticed the other day that they have
javadoc in the gump.xml.
My argument for the below over trying to do things with gump is that it is
simple to get running
Just wondering if anyone had looked at Alexandria.
http://jakarta.apache.org/alexandria/legacy/
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 00:31 -0500, Henri Yandell wrote:
>
> On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, J Aaron Farr wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:49:08 -0500 (EST), Henri Yandell
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
>
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005, J Aaron Farr wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:49:08 -0500 (EST), Henri Yandell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interested in finding out if anyone else thinks this would be a good idea.
Rather than have each subproject managing their release javadocs
separately, I think it would be go
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:49:08 -0500 (EST), Henri Yandell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interested in finding out if anyone else thinks this would be a good idea.
>
> Rather than have each subproject managing their release javadocs
> separately, I think it would be good if we treated the javadoc m
At 12:49 AM -0500 3/16/05, Henri Yandell wrote:
(though seeing a tag doc in javadoc style would rock).
Have you seen
https://taglibrarydoc.dev.java.net/
It is used, for example, to generate this:
http://java.sun.com/products/jsp/jstl/1.1/docs/tlddocs/
There's a Maven plugin which is savvy about thi
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005, Martin Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:49:08 -0500 (EST), Henri Yandell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Interested in finding out if anyone else thinks this would be a good idea.
Rather than have each subproject managing their release javadocs
separately, I think it would be g
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 00:49:08 -0500 (EST), Henri Yandell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Interested in finding out if anyone else thinks this would be a good idea.
>
> Rather than have each subproject managing their release javadocs
> separately, I think it would be good if we treated the javadoc m
Interested in finding out if anyone else thinks this would be a good idea.
Rather than have each subproject managing their release javadocs
separately, I think it would be good if we treated the javadoc more like
the releases. Located in a central location, perhaps mirrored, all
versions availab
11 matches
Mail list logo