Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Like it or not, Sun's javadoc is the spec. We can get involved in the
> EG and help fix the javadoc of course, and we can add additional
> commentary about the our interpretation and implementation to
> improve it, but we need to ensure that we take reasonable steps to
>
Tim Ellison wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Tim Ellison wrote:
reasons Mark and others described.
I'll go review, but can you summarize?
Sure
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Tim Ellison wrote:
>> reasons Mark and others described.
>
> I'll go review, but can you summarize?
Sure
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601.mbox/[EMAIL
PROTECTED]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601
Tim Ellison wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
We will have javadoc of our code, and we do need need to have notes re
our impl of java*.*, but I think at all times we should be pointing to
the spec javadoc, and not re-writing it.
As previously stated, I disagree on this and believe that we have
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:05:23AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Zsejki Sorin Mikl?s wrote:
> >Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>Zsejki Sorin Mikl?s wrote:
> >>>Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
> >>
> >>No. IMO, we should *not* be creating a parallel set of jav
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> We will have javadoc of our code, and we do need need to have notes re
> our impl of java*.*, but I think at all times we should be pointing to
> the spec javadoc, and not re-writing it.
As previously stated, I disagree on this and believe that we have to
create descript
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
No. IMO, we should *not* be creating a parallel set of javadoc for
J2SE. There already is the standard set produced by the expert grou
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
No. IMO, we should *not* be creating a parallel set of javadoc for
J2SE. There already is the standard set produced by the expert group
(part of the spec).
To cl
Tim Ellison wrote:
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
Strictly speaking, no. To be called "Java" you have to pass the JCK
that AIUI does not test the javadoc tool. In any case, I think having a
javadoc would be cool. Do you ha
Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
No. IMO, we should *not* be creating a parallel set of javadoc for
J2SE. There already is the standard set produced by the expert group
(part of the spec).
I m
y-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
th
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
No. IMO, we should *not* be creating a parallel set of javadoc for
J2SE. There already is the standard set produced by the expert group
(part of the spec).
I'm not interested in going down
Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
> Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
Strictly speaking, no. To be called "Java" you have to pass the JCK
that AIUI does not test the javadoc tool. In any case, I think having a
javadoc would be cool. Do you have any skills in this a
Hi Sunny,
I agree that the Java code documentation should use javadoc mark-up.
The native code is a good candidate for Doxygen-style comments, with the
advantage that if you want to generate docs that cover native and java
code (like we did for the porting guide) the Doxygen tool can cross 'the
la
,
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 h
Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
Sunny Chan wrote:
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
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 disp
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
18 matches
Mail list logo
