it, I'm statisfied.
Thanks,
Raymond
- Original Message - From: Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Javadoc for M2
I agree with all these suggestions. In the SCA javadoc downloadable
archive I would include
On 11/2/06, Simon Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
At this stage of Tuscany I think we are targeting application
developers and extension developers, so I would be more inclined to
have a downloadable binary package that is a development/runtime
kit rather than a pure runtime. When we are ready
AM
Subject: Re: Javadoc for M2
I agree with all these suggestions. In the SCA javadoc downloadable
archive I would include the spec API along with tuscany-api,
tuscany-host-api, and tuscany-spi. (Perhaps this is what you meant
by *-api).
This downloadable javadoc archive could either
On Nov 1, 2006, at 3:20 PM, Simon Nash wrote:
Comments inline below.
Simon
Jim Marino wrote:
On Nov 1, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to package java in our M2 binary
distro. I would like to hear your opinions:
I'd say as a separate downloadable
I agree with all these suggestions. In the SCA javadoc downloadable
archive I would include the spec API along with tuscany-api,
tuscany-host-api, and tuscany-spi. (Perhaps this is what you meant
by *-api).
This downloadable javadoc archive could either be combined with the
downloadable
Jim,
I have responded to Jeremy's post on the details of what should
be released and in which locations.
As you say, personal preference on this point does vary, and there
is quite a variation between other projects on how they handle this.
I looked at a few other project releases to see what
Nash [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: tuscany-dev@ws.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 8:01 AM
Subject: Re: Javadoc for M2
I agree with all these suggestions. In the SCA javadoc downloadable
archive I would include the spec API along with tuscany-api,
tuscany-host-api, and tuscany-spi. (Perhaps
Hi,
I think it would be useful to package java in our M2 binary distro. I would
like to hear your opinions:
1) What modules should we generate javadoc? I assume only for *-api and *-spi.
2) Should we package the javadoc with the standalone distro or as a separate
archive?
Thanks,
Raymond
On 11/1/06, Raymond Feng [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I assume only for *-api and *-spi.
Sounds ok to me.
2) Should we package the javadoc with the standalone distro or as a separate
archive?
For this M2 release i think with the binary distro not a separate javadoc
distro, we've enough
On Nov 1, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to package java in our M2 binary distro.
I would like to hear your opinions:
I'd say as a separate downloadable jar since this would only be
relevant to extensions providers and not applications developers.
The maven javadoc goal by default generates a -javadoc.jar for every
artifact it produces and allows that to be deployed to the repo. I
believe it does this because that is the format expected by the
different IDEs (it certainly is for IDEA and I think Raymond said it
worked for Eclipse as well).
Comments inline below.
Simon
Jim Marino wrote:
On Nov 1, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
Hi,
I think it would be useful to package java in our M2 binary distro. I
would like to hear your opinions:
I'd say as a separate downloadable jar since this would only be
relevant to
12 matches
Mail list logo