Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-03 Thread Jim Marino
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-03 Thread ant elder
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-03 Thread Venkata Krishnan
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-02 Thread Jim Marino
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-02 Thread Simon Nash
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-02 Thread Simon Nash
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-02 Thread Raymond Feng
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

Javadoc for M2

2006-11-01 Thread Raymond Feng
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-01 Thread ant elder
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

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-01 Thread Jim Marino
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.

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-01 Thread Jeremy Boynes
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).

Re: Javadoc for M2

2006-11-01 Thread Simon Nash
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