Mailing-List: contact dev-help@groovy.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@groovy.apache.org
Subject: Re: API document generation
To: dev@groovy.apache.org
References: 
 <CANBeYQQs9Tn9ONK5cfGxrWYqa6YZXxjFEgOcfH8o9fdSrEbzFw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAAsy7bGMKyNpsAMpRQweF83JrVJ0BBCtfuVTqHTq6CF2w_pE9w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANBeYQTeGwam24O3jxU80z6Hz5ru++GxH6Nqtxjq2XjV9pM3Xg@mail.gmail.com>
 <036A33DB-5F16-4F7B-A640-8873D310E908@msgilligan.com>
From: Jochen Theodorou <blackdrag@gmx.org>
Message-ID: <56AF81B1.7000501@gmx.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2016 17:02:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <036A33DB-5F16-4F7B-A640-8873D310E908@msgilligan.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


On 01.02.2016 16:13, Sean Gilligan wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm also wondering whether others think groovydoc is just fine as it is,
>
> It's not fine. In my opinion it's one of the biggest frustrations with Groovy. Especially the fact that you can't use it for both Java (7+) and Groovy.
>
> And Asciidoclet support would be awesome!

we can write a doctool, that can process Groovy and java... maybe even 
other languages. And such a tool could then have asciidoc support of 
course. I could even imagine supporting existing doclets to some extend....

But hooking into javadoc to make it know a new language is painful. 
Because it means to hook into the javac compiler, produce an ast the 
compiler understands and then not having proper support for extension 
methods and properties or any other thing  that goes beyond what java 
offers. And on top of that... you are handling internal classes, which 
may change in any version of java... and with jdk9 modules they might 
not even be normally available anymore. For basically the same reasons I 
gave up on a javac based joint compiler for Groovy.

bye Jochen