Agree with you David. Changelog/license/etc they just make sources longer.
Ara. > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:xdoclet-devel- > [EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David Jencks > Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2002 7:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: Re: [Xdoclet-devel] Common source file header > > I don't like parameterized headers -- I like the info in the javadoc. > > I don't like long headers either that include the entire license. Is > there > some legal reason to do this? Seems like code duplication to me, and I > don't like wading through it to get to the code. > > david jencks > > (sf lists got me again w/reply button) > On 2002.04.28 09:24:04 -0400 Aslak Helles�y wrote: > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Mathias > > > Bogaert > > > Sent: 29. april 2002 00:03 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: [Xdoclet-devel] Common source file header > > > > > > > > > IMHO we should have a common header for all source (java) files > > > stating the > > > name of the class, and optionally a description. It should also state > > the > > > license and > > > indicate where users can find the license. > > > > > > > Currently JRefactory/pretty is inserting a header automatically. See > > pretty.settings. I don't think there is any way to parameterise this > > heading > > so that it differs from class to class (but I might be wrong). Isn't it > > better to have the class-specific info in the class' /** */? > > > > I think we should extend the header to include the full license. > > > > > For example: > > > > > > /* > > > * Title: DocletSupport > > > * Description: > > > * > > > * This software is published under the terms of the BSD Software > > License, > > > * of which a copy has been included with thisdistribution in the > > > LICENSE.txt file. > > > */ > > > > > > package xdoclet; > > > ... > > > > > > What license does XDoclet have? the BSD license? all of the files? > > > > > > > AFAIK nobody has brought up the issue of having different license for > > different parts of the code. -But I think we should open for it. Some > > contributors might want to put their module contibutions under different > > a > > different license. > > > > Currently the license is BSD. See core/docs/license.html. > > > > We should also include the license of all the 3rd party tools we're > using > > that require it. > > > > Aslak > > > > > Mathias > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Xdoclet-devel mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel _______________________________________________ Xdoclet-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
