harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Zsejki Sorin Miklós <zse...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: javadoc vs. doxygen
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2006 11:01:22 GMT

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.

> I'm not interested in going down this road - there are way too many 
> landmines.
> geir
>> 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