db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Andrew McIntyre" <mcintyr...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Javadoc lies
Date Fri, 05 May 2006 23:06:37 GMT
On 5/5/06, Rick Hillegas <Richard.Hillegas@sun.com> wrote:
> Thanks to everyone who responded to this thread. It doesn't seem that
> anyone has a solution to this problem. Does anyone have a preference for
> which lie we tell: (1b) or (2d)? Barring a preference here, the default
> would be (1b), our current behavior.

Sorry for the late reply, I've been meaning to follow up on this. 1b
seems worse to me than 2d, but implementing 2d seems like a lot of
trouble to still have lies. For 2d, though, it seems like it would be
sufficient to mention that EmbeddedDataSource40 is actually a subclass
and then link to it.

As for 3 all I could think of was 3a) creating a doclet based on the
standard doclet with an overridden MethodDoc that ignores methods that
are @since 1.6 if the class version of the class containing the method
is < 1.6. Not sure how much work that is, but it might be fairly
involved. A less accurate but easier way of dealing with it would be
3b) (if you go with 1b) write a custom taglet that lets you mark
methods as not really implemented in this version of the class.

As for 4, well, unless anybody works on the other suggestions, looks
like we get 1b. :-)

andrew

Mime
View raw message