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 10:58:43 GMT
I don't see this as "either/or" but as both.

We need javadoc.  Clearly.  Every java programmer is used to it, and 
tools use it.

That said, we do need documentation beyond what javadoc offers.

Question for d'Oxygen :) nerds.... is it too painful to write regular 
docs in it - i.e. independent documents that you might want to augment 
the in-code docs?

geir


George Harley1 wrote:
> Hi Sunny, 
> 
> As far as I can tell, Doxygen seems to work just fine with Javadoc-style 
> comments. So comments could still be written using Javadoc markup (keeping 
> Eclipse content-assist happy) while leaving the way open for Doxygen to be 
> the chosen documentation tool for Harmony. 
> 
> 
> Best regards,
> George
> ________________________________________
> George C. Harley
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sunny Chan <mailinglist@sunnychan.org.uk> 
> 26/01/2006 22:11
> Please respond to
> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> 
> 
> To
> harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> cc
> 
> Subject
> Re: javadoc vs. doxygen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message