harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From George Harley1 <GHAR...@uk.ibm.com>
Subject Re: javadoc vs. doxygen
Date Fri, 27 Jan 2006 09:56:32 GMT
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 C. Harley

Sunny Chan <mailinglist@sunnychan.org.uk> 
26/01/2006 22:11
Please respond to


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. 
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 
class library use Doxygen and stop Eclipse content assist from working


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 
> 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