Mailing-List: contact dev-help@beehive.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Beehive Developers" <dev@beehive.apache.org>
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of stocco@bea.com designates
 63.96.162.5 as permitted sender)
content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: NetUI Javadoc issues
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:47:04 -0600
Message-ID: <A33EF4FD8AF1EC48A62CD576DFB75AD5043C75E9@usboex01.amer.bea.com>
Thread-Topic: NetUI Javadoc issues
Thread-Index: AcWsuDxRfM6xYqpLSraYeryyvldEpwAABh0Q
From: "Steven Tocco" <stocco@bea.com>
To: "Beehive Developers" <dev@beehive.apache.org>

Not sure if this needs a vote or not, but masking internal seems like a
great idea to avoid inappropriate dependencies later.

I'd treat as a bug and go for it imho.

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: Eddie O'Neil [mailto:ekoneil@gmail.com]=20
Sent: Monday, August 29, 2005 10:39 AM
To: Beehive Developers
Subject: Re: NetUI Javadoc issues

  Any other thoughts about this?  Should we put it to a vote?

  If not, I'll open a JIRA issue and someone can grab / fix.

Eddie


On 8/28/05, Rich Feit <richfeit@gmail.com> wrote:
> I totally agree about excluding JavaDoc for "internal" packages.  Nice
> catch.  I'm happy to do this if you haven't done it locally already.
>=20
> Rich
>=20
> Eddie O'Neil wrote:
>=20
> >  In looking through the NetUI Javadoc, I've found a few things that
> >need to be fixed before 1.0.  These include:
> >
> >- the netui/src/core package isn't being Javadoc'ed
> >- the Javadoc is labeled in the title as "Page Flow API" rather than
"NetUI API"
> >- the Controls / WSM / system control Javadoc page titles are
> >inconsistent with the NetUI ones.  Will make all of them say
something
> >like "Beehive xyz API Documentation"
> >- the Javadoc window titles don't include the version number
> >
> >In NetUI, we are also Javadoc'ing **/internal/** packages, which
means
> >that things we've (to date) considered non-public APIs are being
> >doc'ed along with the rest of the public API.  Rich, you've had
> >thoughts on this before -- maybe we should remove them if we consider
> >them "internal" APIs.
> >
> >  Should have this changes in the list above checked in momentarily.
> >
> >  Thoughts on the **/internal/** Javadoc?
> >
> >Eddie
> >
> >
> >
>