harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Leo Simons <m...@leosimons.com>
Subject javadocs policies and rifles (was: javadoc vs. doxygen)
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2006 13:38:23 GMT
On Fri, Jan 27, 2006 at 06:05:23AM -0500, Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
> >Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
> >>Zsejki Sorin Miklós wrote:
> >>>Doesn't Harmony need Javadoc anyway just in order to be called "Java"?
> >>
> >>No.  IMO, we should *not* be creating a parallel set of javadoc for 
> >>J2SE.  There already is the standard set produced by the expert group 
> >>(part of the spec).
> >
> >I meant the tool.
> Oh. <lowering rifle>  Sometimes I can't see past my own muzzle flash.

Heh. I pretty much agree with Geir that it doesn't make that much sense to
match Sun's javadocs in breadth or quality or function and I'm certainly not
interested in working on that myself.

But I don't think we need to discuss it a whole lot. I don't see a problem
if people do work on these bits. If someone feels that the javadocs from sun
are awkward or wrong or hard to comprehend (for example I've always felt the
javadoc for Object.equals() is painfully messed up, I can just imagine there
being dozens of java tutors out there who have written alternatives and who
have no place to go with that tidbit of info) and they want to work on
that within the harmony svn repo I can understand that. Signs are definitely
that with GPLv3 that work could be merged into eg classpath and we already
know it can be merged into sun's stuff upstream.

So I don't get why you're holding that rifle at all or why there was so much
discussion about this a while ago. Eg, the (non)existence of javadoc does not
strongly affect our ability to build a kick ass j2se implementation, so lets
just agree to accept sensible patches and not worry about a "javadoc policy"
too much :-)

Just two cents from the peanut gallery...



View raw message