ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Loughran" <stev...@iseran.com>
Subject Re: cvs commit: jakarta-ant/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/optional EchoProperties.java IContract.java NetRexxC.java PropertyFile.java RenameExtensions.java
Date Mon, 25 Feb 2002 18:22:28 GMT

----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Skeet" <jon.skeet@peramon.com>
To: "Ant Developers List" <ant-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 08:25
Subject: RE: cvs commit:
jakarta-ant/src/main/org/apache/tools/ant/taskdefs/optional
EchoProperties.java IContract.java NetRexxC.java PropertyFile.java
RenameExtensions.java


> Well, the issue also becomes the use of XDoclet.  Is there a
> way to turn off warnings of unrecognized tags?

Not as far as I can see, but I don't know a lot about that...

> I want XDoclet to start building our task documentation.  I
> have made a prototype that I will commit to the proposal area (hopefully
> later this
> week).  I want tags like this:
>
> Exit.java:
>     @ant:task name="fail"  category="control"
>
> That way we can categorize tasks, and also code generate our
> defaults.properties, etc.
>
> I've actually already modified my local version of some tasks
> to have these tags for my prototype.
>
> How can we have both no javadoc warnings and use XDoclet?  I
> feel warnings are better than no XDoclet though!  :)

Sure. If there's going to be a good reason to break "clean javadoc" anyway,
todo becomes just one more reason. This sounds like a very good reason.

>Here's a list of files which had @todos stripped in today's warning purge:

>Xalan1Executor (JUnit)
>XMLResultAggregator (JUnit)
>ClassPathLoader (sitraka/bytecode)
>MethodInfo (sitraka/bytecode)
>PropertyFile
>
>I'm more than happy to put them back when we've worked out what we'll do
with them.
>
>Given your @ant:task name, is it possible to prefix *all* the non-standard
tags we want to use with >@ant? That would distinguish them from tags that
people believe incorrectly to be valid (eg @returns >and @created).

@todo is special in that it will be supported in a future version of
javadoc, apparently. We are just being ahead of the curve in using it. Jedit
and xdoclet both handle it, and yes, xdoclets presentation of the todo list
is excellent (like a javadoc tree listing packages, classes, with open todo
items)


I agree that anything other than @todo should be left out (nb, iContracts
@pre and @post?), and that we should use @ant: for our own markup in future




--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:ant-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:ant-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message