harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Geir Magnusson Jr <g...@pobox.com>
Subject Re: javadoc vs. doxygen
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2006 10:55:38 GMT

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'm not interested in going down this road - there are way too many 


> Sunny Chan wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I am more of a lurker :-) but I have an opinion on this matter.
>> If I were to develop a java class library I would stick to Javadoc. 
>> Remember, things like Eclipse have support for javadoc embedded source 
>> code - so that when you use Eclipse's excellent content assist feature 
>> it will display the information about the classes/method/etc. I would 
>> be really annoyed if Harmony class library use Doxygen and stop 
>> Eclipse content assist from working
>> Thanks,
>> Sunny
>> Andrey Chernyshev wrote:
>>> There was a long discussion about writing (or non-writing) the javadoc
>>> comments for Java class libraries. I think the another interesting
>>> question is: what tools do we use for generating documentation for
>>> code at Harmony?
>>> Initial class libraries contribution suggested to use the doxygen 
>>> system for
>>> creating documentation for Java code. Security contribution then
>>> suggested an idea of using custom tags for referencing the original
>>> J2SE spec.
>>> Regardless of whether custom javadoc tags idea is good or bad, I
>>> wonder how it could be easily implemented using the doxygen. While the
>>> doxygen may seem to be more universal approach because it covers both
>>> C/C++ and Java code, I'm not sure if it has an internal API similar to
>>> the doclet API supported by the javadoc tool.
>>> For example, one can use ALIASES in doxygen configuration to define a
>>> custom tag and then expand it to some static text. In the same
>>> scenario, javadoc would allow to generate some more sophisticated text
>>> depending on the current class, method or whatever other information
>>> extracted from the Java source file where the tag was found.
>>> Another note is that default javadoc-produced documentation and
>>> doxygen-produced documentation have different "look-and-feel".
>>> What people think, do we need javadoc for documenting Java sources, or
>>> we can always live with the doxygen?
>>> If we choose to use javadoc, whether it makes sense to develop our own
>>> version of this tool at Harmony?
>>> Thank you,
>>> Andrey Chernyshev
>>> Intel Middleware Products Division

View raw message