Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-10 Thread Tim Ellison
... and it goes without saying that if gjdoc were dual licensed/contributed we'd welcome it with open arms. Regards, Tim Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Because distributing software under the GPL is a non-starter for us. Anthony Green wrote: On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 13:41 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-10 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
indeed. We're lazy. geir Tim Ellison wrote: ... and it goes without saying that if gjdoc were dual licensed/contributed we'd welcome it with open arms. Regards, Tim Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: Because distributing software under the GPL is a non-starter for us. Anthony Green wrote: On Thu,

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread Jeremy Huiskamp
What would be the suggested route for coming up with a javadoc tool? Is there something out there now that could be imported and shaped up? At the other extreme, I'm envisioning busting out jflex/cup and doing a from-scratch implementation. I'm thinking there would be a lot of

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Jeremy Huiskamp wrote: What would be the suggested route for coming up with a javadoc tool? Open up an editor, and start typing! :) Is there something out there now that could be imported and shaped up? At the other extreme, I'm envisioning busting out jflex/cup and doing a

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread Jeremy Huiskamp
First the disclaimer: I have zero experience with writing such tools and precious little with compilers. I'm just spewing what I think but if there are accepted ways of doing these things, it'd be great for anyone to step in and school me. I'm here to learn, hopefully by contributing :)

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread George Harley
Hi Jeremy, Whatever you feel like doing will be better than nothing. (Sorry, I couldn't resist it) George IBM UK Jeremy Huiskamp wrote: First the disclaimer: I have zero experience with writing such tools and precious little with compilers. I'm just spewing what I think but if there are

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread Tim Ellison
You may find it useful to take a look at the Eclipse Java AST APIs, http://help.eclipse.org/help31/index.jsp?topic=/org.eclipse.jdt.doc.isv/reference/api/org/eclipse/jdt/core/dom/AST.html http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/library/os-ast/?ca=dgr-lnxw97ASTParser

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread Jeremy Huiskamp
Lovely, that's exactly the kind of pointers that'll help me :) Another thing occurred to me this evening, and that is that xdoclet must be extremely similar to javadoc. I will have a poke around with that too and see if it isn't doable. Jeremy On 9-Feb-06, at 6:03 PM, Tim Ellison wrote:

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread Anthony Green
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 13:41 -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote: We were planning to just use the eclipse compiler. No reason to rewrite. Didn't you just write in this thread that you need all the tooling? What makes the compiler special? If you can non-Apache FOSS licensed tools, why not just use

Re: [tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-02-09 Thread Jeremy Huiskamp
I was wondering about this myself. I went and slogged through the epl and had trouble gathering exactly what the license restrictions were. From what I could tell, most of it was just disclaimer. What is the official apache stance on epl code? Jeremy On 9-Feb-06, at 11:48 PM, Anthony

[tools] Javadoc! Javadoc! Javadoc! (the tool, not the debate...)

2006-01-31 Thread Geir Magnusson Jr
Ok - this isn't about the finer points of confusion surrounding documentation We need a javadoc tool for Harmony. The current conversation is a diversion from this, which I recall was the original motivation behind the current generation of this discussion. So, anyone interested? We