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 16:52:00 GMT

Tim Ellison wrote:
> Geir Magnusson Jr wrote:
>> Tim Ellison wrote:
> <snip>
>>> reasons Mark and others described.
>> I'll go review, but can you summarize?
> Sure
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601.mbox/%3c1137409863.5615.21.camel@localhost.localdomain%3e
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601.mbox/%3cm3u0c7zwb6.fsf@localhost.localdomain%3e

That's not really a summary :)  Thanks for the links.  Like it or not, 
Sun's javadoc is the spec.  We can get involved in the EG and help fix 
the javadoc of course, and we can add additional commentary about the 
our interpretation and implementation to improve it, but we need to 
ensure that we take reasonable steps to avoid confusion.

> and a related comment that Sunny made about IDEs that grok JavaDoc
> comments to help users & developers

The argument isn't about not having javadoc - we have to have javadoc, 
for both java* and org.apache.harmony*.


> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/incubator-harmony-dev/200601.mbox/%3c43D9491A.4020300@sunnychan.org.uk%3e
> Tim

View raw message