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 javadoc for > >>J2SE. There already is the standard set produced by the expert group > >>(part of the spec). > > > >I meant the tool. > > Oh. <lowering rifle> Sometimes I can't see past my own muzzle flash.
Heh. I pretty much agree with Geir that it doesn't make that much sense to match Sun's javadocs in breadth or quality or function and I'm certainly not interested in working on that myself. But I don't think we need to discuss it a whole lot. I don't see a problem if people do work on these bits. If someone feels that the javadocs from sun are awkward or wrong or hard to comprehend (for example I've always felt the javadoc for Object.equals() is painfully messed up, I can just imagine there being dozens of java tutors out there who have written alternatives and who have no place to go with that tidbit of info) and they want to work on that within the harmony svn repo I can understand that. Signs are definitely that with GPLv3 that work could be merged into eg classpath and we already know it can be merged into sun's stuff upstream. So I don't get why you're holding that rifle at all or why there was so much discussion about this a while ago. Eg, the (non)existence of javadoc does not strongly affect our ability to build a kick ass j2se implementation, so lets just agree to accept sensible patches and not worry about a "javadoc policy" too much :-) Just two cents from the peanut gallery... cheers! LSD
