groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <pa...@asert.com.au>
Subject Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful
Date Sat, 25 Jul 2015 07:01:51 GMT
On 25/07/2015 3:21 AM, Keegan Witt wrote:
> While I was examining the code to create the Jira, I noticed that in the main code
>
>   * org.codehaus.groovy.antlr.parser is an empty package, can we delete it?

That sits in target/generated-sources/src/main these days. It should be fine to delete.
In the past the antlr files were generated back into the source tree to make
life easier within IDEs etc.

>   * org.codehaus.groovy.tools.xml contains only a package.html, can we delete the package?

That logically belongs in subprojects/groovy-xml/src/main and should be moved
there unless we have some tooling issue when merging in the package.html files
from subprojects. Hopefully that's all fine but there were some things broken
in the early days of doing the modularization work so I normally double check
such things and I haven't checked either way as yet.

> Should I also create a Jira for merging the Groovydoc fix to the 2.4 branch?

Already fixed (two merges had been missed and two additional files weren't covered by the
master commits).

Cheers, Paul.

>
> -Keegan
>
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org <mailto:blackdrag@gmx.org>>
wrote:
>
>     Am 24.07.2015 14 <tel:24.07.2015%2014>:23, schrieb Paul King:
>     [...]
>
>         If you replace latest with next in the url, you'll see the same problem
>         isn't there. We had briefly the header comment accidentally having /**
>         at the beginning instead of /*.
>
>
>     but should that really matter? They are not in the right place to count as javadoc
for the class. Is that a... what was it again? qdoc? A bug in qdoc?
>
>             Also, are we considering creating package-info.html /
>             package-info.java files?
>
>
>         We have some package.html files but not many package-info.groovy (or
>         Java) files.
>
>
>     but aren't the package-info.html files ignored too? I mean their content is supposed
to how up on http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/gapi/groovy/lang/package-summary.html
as well, or not? groovy/lang has a package-info.html file.
>
>         At one point such files caused problems for Grails (was it
>         Tomcat's classloader having issues with classnames containing hyphens?).
>         I think we excluded/disabled some part of our package-info support. So
>         it might be easy to re-enable but we'll need to test with Grails.
>
>
>     there was something, yes.... don't remember the details though atm.
>
>
>     bye blackdrag
>
>     --
>     Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou
>     blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/
>
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus


Mime
View raw message