cxf-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Christian Schneider <>
Subject Re: CXF javadoc questions for 3.0
Date Thu, 03 Apr 2014 05:48:27 GMT
Why do we need javadoc at all? If we create source jars for every maven 
artifact and a source distribution we should already provide all 
informations necessary.
At least when using an IDE the user will automatically see the javadoc 
generated from the source.

So the only difference is for users who do not use an IDE. At least for 
me the only case where I sometimes hit javadoc is when searching on the 
web. I never downloaded javadoc and used it.


Am 02.04.2014 20:38, schrieb Daniel Kulp:
> For 2.x, we basically generated 2 different sets of Javadoc for 2 different purposes:
> 1) We generated the javadoc ONLY for the cxf-api.  This is the javadoc that we stuck
in the “docs” dir of the distribution.
> 2) As part of the big cxf-bundle build, we generated javadocs for everything that went
in the bundle.  This is what we deployed to the website.
> There are some problems with both….   cxf-api misses a ton of stuff that we expect
users to use.   Things like the HttpConduits for configuring http settings, lots of JAX-RS
things, the JAX-WS factories, etc….   The second one includes a lot more stuff, but still
misses anything in the services (sts, ws-discovery, etc…).  Plus, those are just available
on-line.  Not sure if that’s an issue.
> For 3.0, we want to get rid of the big bundle. Thus, generating 2 needed a re-think.
  I just pushed some changes to create a distribution/javadoc module to handle that.   It
now includes EVERYTHING other than the wars and tests.  Thus, it really is a complete javadoc
of everything in CXF.
> Now, the question comes: what do we want to include and where?  The full javadoc is 168MB.
  Do we want to include that in the distribution?  (although it compresses very very well
so doesn’t balloon the tar.gz/zip up by much).  Or do we want to include only some subset
for the distribution?  Just “cxf-core” to match what we included for 2.x?   More?    Alternatively,
in the docs dir, just put a simple read me that points to for the main
docs and the appropriate javadoc dir for javadoc?   That may be the most appropriate since
we don’t include any “real” docs in the distribution anyway, just the javadocs.
> Thoughts?

Christian Schneider

Open Source Architect
Talend Application Integration Division

View raw message