castor
  1. castor
  2. CASTOR-1689

Amend 'apipackagenames' in src/build.xml to be closer to reality

    Details

    • Type: Task Task
    • Status: Closed Closed
    • Priority: Trivial Trivial
    • Resolution: Fixed
    • Affects Version/s: 1.0, 1.0.1, 1.0.2, 1.0.3, 1.0.4
    • Fix Version/s: 1.1 M1
    • Component/s: General
    • Labels:
      None
    • Number of attachments :
      0

      Description

      Subject says all ... it looks like no API will be generated for org.castor packages.

        Activity

        Hide
        Werner Guttmann added a comment -

        Looks like I have to take this on myself ... .

        Show
        Werner Guttmann added a comment - Looks like I have to take this on myself ... .
        Hide
        Werner Guttmann added a comment -

        Actually, let me ask one general question: does it actually make sense to still maintain this distinction between public API and Javadocs ? I am almost 100% sure that our users can read the Javadoc when looking for e.g. the signature of a method on the Marshaller without being overwhelmed .., ?

        Show
        Werner Guttmann added a comment - Actually, let me ask one general question: does it actually make sense to still maintain this distinction between public API and Javadocs ? I am almost 100% sure that our users can read the Javadoc when looking for e.g. the signature of a method on the Marshaller without being overwhelmed .., ?
        Hide
        Edward Kuns added a comment -

        I trust that users can distinguish between the public API and the private JavaDoc. Knowing the mantra of, "Use the Source, Luke!" it's a Good Thing (tm) to publish the full JavaDoc, IMO. Especially if we warn users somewhere appropriate that although we provide the full JavaDoc, they should not consider it our API as internal methods are free to change.

        Is that what you were getting at?

        Show
        Edward Kuns added a comment - I trust that users can distinguish between the public API and the private JavaDoc. Knowing the mantra of, "Use the Source, Luke!" it's a Good Thing (tm) to publish the full JavaDoc, IMO. Especially if we warn users somewhere appropriate that although we provide the full JavaDoc, they should not consider it our API as internal methods are free to change. Is that what you were getting at?
        Hide
        Werner Guttmann added a comment -

        Yes, I find it .. quite artificial two make two sets of JavaDoc available. In other words, we'll remove the API part, right ?

        Show
        Werner Guttmann added a comment - Yes, I find it .. quite artificial two make two sets of JavaDoc available. In other words, we'll remove the API part, right ?
        Hide
        Edward Kuns added a comment -

        It makes sense to me to remove build target "api" and dependencies used only by it so that we rely only on build target "javadoc" for all javadocs.

        Show
        Edward Kuns added a comment - It makes sense to me to remove build target "api" and dependencies used only by it so that we rely only on build target "javadoc" for all javadocs.
        Hide
        Werner Guttmann added a comment -

        Okay. That means I will be removing the menu entry in the HTML docs as well .. as a result.

        Show
        Werner Guttmann added a comment - Okay. That means I will be removing the menu entry in the HTML docs as well .. as a result.

          People

          • Assignee:
            Werner Guttmann
            Reporter:
            Werner Guttmann
          • Votes:
            0 Vote for this issue
            Watchers:
            0 Start watching this issue

            Dates

            • Created:
              Updated:
              Resolved:

              Time Tracking

              Estimated:
              Original Estimate - 30 minutes
              30m
              Remaining:
              Remaining Estimate - 30 minutes
              30m
              Logged:
              Time Spent - Not Specified
              Not Specified