groovy-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul King <>
Subject Re: Package Groovydoc not helpful
Date Sat, 25 Jul 2015 10:09:52 GMT
On 24/07/2015 10:56 PM, Jochen Theodorou wrote:
> Am 24.07.2015 14:23, 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?

qdox is used in docgenerator. Groovydoc uses the Java and Groovy grammars for parsing Java
and Groovy files respectively but since neither grammar currently contains the comments Groovydoc
uses a slightly fragile comment scrapping approach to pull out the class comments, method
comments, etc. We could invest more time in to making the comment scrapping less fragile but
we've been thinking it preferable to invest time into getting onto the Antlr 4 grammar and
then adding in comment support (perhaps leveraging the work done in the Eclipse compiler plugin).

>>> Also, are we considering creating package-info.html /
>>> 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
as well, or not? groovy/lang has a package-info.html file.

For whatever reason, it looks like the subproject package.html files are being processed and
the ones from core are being missed.

Cheers, Paul.

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

View raw message