Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ant.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of peter.kitt.reilly@gmail.com
 designates 64.233.162.200 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
        b=ocFviOg2pDBAz8+r6pX0MKJAcLlQG+mynVwmfC2ixlIVtFxlQOBzmSXr0MWzhUUlp/LZWooAHovwz8w1qEbE88waom9SwAQID869fEDkgmTzl2HXuUh5zOc6PCY0wc9HCVOyY/vExcV930IWwDWqCvZlSTtuHz8y4skoxkYeWLo=
Message-ID: <dffc72020602230117g2bb51803rfc606fb6ff11b5d7@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:17:12 +0000
From: "Peter Reilly" <peter.kitt.reilly@gmail.com>
To: "Ant Developers List" <dev@ant.apache.org>
Subject: Re: <javadoc>'s packagenames attribute
In-Reply-To: <87r75x8gq2.fsf@www.samaflost.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_12094_14866045.1140686232703"
References: <87r75x8gq2.fsf@www.samaflost.de>

------=_Part_12094_14866045.1140686232703
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

+1 for option 2.

Peter

On 2/21/06, Stefan Bodewig <bodewig@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> you can tell javadoc what to document by passing in either package
> names or source files.  Our task supports both notions and provides
> several options to specify the packages, the most common one is to
> state where the source hierarchy is and explicitly provide patterns
> that match the packages we want to document.
>
> The way it works is that each pattern is turned into an include
> pattern for a DirSet and then each directory given as source path is
> scanned (and matched directories translated into package names).
>
> If no patterns have been specified, the task won't scan any
> directories at all.
>
> The docs say the packagenames attribute is optional - since you only
> need to specify it if you really point to the source tree rather than
> the source files themselves.
>
> This leads to the situation that if you point to your source tree and
> don't provide any patterns for packages, Ant will claim you hadn't
> specified any sources or packages at all.  This has been that way
> since, well, ever.
>
> I think we could do better and at least one person filing a bug
> reports seems to agree.  The options I see:
>
> (1) better document that package patterns are required if you only
> point to the source hierarchy.  This is the fully backwards compatible
> option.
>
> (2) If no patterns have been specified at all, implicitly assume
> packagenames=3D"*" and match all packages that have been found.  This is
> not backwards compatible since builds that have been breaking prior to
> that change would suddenly start building.
>
> I don't see much danger in this type of backwards incompatibility (and
> thus prefer option 2) but wanted to gather some feedback before
> enabling it.
>
> Stefan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@ant.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@ant.apache.org
>
>

------=_Part_12094_14866045.1140686232703--