ant-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Erik Hatcher <>
Subject Re: ant xdocs! it ran!
Date Thu, 13 Feb 2003 21:58:01 GMT
On Thursday, February 13, 2003, at 04:33  PM, Bruce Atherton wrote:
>> As for superclass linking.... thats not quite going to work though.  
>> A superclass might not actually be a task, and if it is it might not 
>> be a task that can be used directly.
> But if the superclass provides public set/add/create methods of the 
> correct form, those would allow additional attributes and elements to 
> be given to the task from a build file, right? Shouldn't these be 
> documented?

Right, and yes they should.  And it does do that... right?  Besides the 
<delete> task, which I haven't looked into specifically, is there a 
case where it was not picking up superclass set/add/create methods?  I 
think it should be doing that now.

There are some exceptions to these rules.  Not all setters are 
necessarily attributes to the task, and they are intentionally *not* 
documented currently.   This is where it gets tricky and confusing.  
There is a facility to tag a method to be ignored (@ant.attribute 
ignore="true", I believe).

> Does all the documentation generated have to be for tasks? Couldn't 
> pages be generated that were only available as a link from one of the 
> task pages? And shouldn't xdocs eventually support drill down into 
> datatypes documentation as well?

Datatypes are next up on the list once we iron out the kinks of the 
tasks.  The infrastructure is already in place to enable that pretty 

As for other pages being generated... if it cannot be directly derived 
from Ant's source code then it doesn't make sense to generate pages 
with this process.  Can you give me an example of what you are after 

> Ahh well, I seem to have developed a few more itches on my already 
> itch-covered body. Your FOP comment made me want to write an XSL-FO 
> stylesheet for xdocs too. You've done a great job already, don't let 
> my kibbitzing suggest otherwise.

Thanks and I'll be eagerly awaiting that FOP itch to be scratched!  :))


View raw message