Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
  s=dk20050327; d=earthlink.net;
  b=AFliEOuP5RmJfdWJuooBYz7sErjnKaBkJ56/J2RocfH5x+IG+hkaUux1F2Va7LcW;
  h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Message-ID: <48FF13B3.20400@earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2008 07:51:15 -0400
From: Joe Bohn <joe.bohn@earthlink.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Macintosh/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@geronimo.apache.org
Subject: Re: Java doc is Geronimo 2.0.1 API
References: <3da992810809201936x34ceb221v436925a4ee4ff57a@mail.gmail.com>
 <48FDF2C6.5090309@earthlink.net>
 <67FE6F15-522D-4AF3-918D-1773FC18491E@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <67FE6F15-522D-4AF3-918D-1773FC18491E@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Yes, I was thinking the same thing.  I just hadn't gotten to it yet and 
I was also a little hesitant because that implies that we will have the 
javadoc for all releases.  At the moment we only have 2.0.1 and 2.1.3.

Joe


Jason Dillon wrote:
> I suggest we create an intermediate page in the wiki to list the javadoc 
> versions, and link to that from the sidenav instead of going directly to 
> 2.1.3.
> 
> --jason
> 
> 
> On Oct 21, 2008, at 10:18 PM, Joe Bohn wrote:
> 
>> I built and checked in the server 2.1.3 javadocs.  This seemed to be 
>> the most expedient thing to do but there are some concerns:
>>
>> #1 This is a huge amount of content to include in svn.  I think infra 
>> will not be happy with us.
>> #2 Given #1, I debated deleting the 2.0.1 javadoc.  However, this 
>> won't save anything given that svn must keep the history.  It will 
>> save anyone from getting all of the 2.0.1 content if they check out 
>> the site trunk.  What do you think, should we delete or keep 2.0.1 
>> javadoc?
>> #3 Also given #1, it's probably a good thing that we haven't done this 
>> for each release.  Perhaps we should just do this once for each major 
>> version?  Thoughts?
>> #4 We had discussed using the maven generated site rather than 
>> distributing this javadoc.  However that also presents some problems:
>> - Currently it doesn't build for tags/2.1.3 (at least not for me).
>> - When it does build, the javadoc is per module/project.  So rather 
>> than a complete view of javadoc as with that just checked in you must 
>> first navigate to the module of interest and then you can view the 
>> javadoc for that module. This doesn't seem as useful to me.
>>
>> I'm not sure if I want to take the time to investigate the mvn site 
>> issues right now .... anybody else interested?
>>
>> Joe
>>
>>
>>
>> Ted Kirby wrote:
>>>> From the home page, if I choose Javadoc as the first choice under the
>>> Development section of the left nav bar, I get 2.0.1 Javadoc.  This
>>> should be updated to 2.1.3.
>>> Ted Kirby
>>
> 
>