Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 14128 invoked from network); 26 Jan 2006 16:38:57 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 26 Jan 2006 16:38:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 38075 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2006 16:38:41 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-harmony-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 37769 invoked by uid 500); 26 Jan 2006 16:38:39 -0000 Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 37758 invoked by uid 99); 26 Jan 2006 16:38:39 -0000 Received: from asf.osuosl.org (HELO asf.osuosl.org) (140.211.166.49) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:38:39 -0800 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=10.0 tests=SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of a.y.chernyshev@gmail.com designates 66.249.92.195 as permitted sender) Received: from [66.249.92.195] (HELO uproxy.gmail.com) (66.249.92.195) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:38:39 -0800 Received: by uproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id m3so589412ugc for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:38:17 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition; b=jjVMXHpjMb1glh/4aYZi5PYGb73xdEoWex0n3gsIEed75OGQBlpiy54dabeV1ddnYVL3DvbYK+cP8JltJTX0NMyXQnuhxj5rWyBFszzivIl9mojPVdXNAHaS/aoyMIWAL8SxQrx8P3Djjy9IVB0lwqPiFcrntrTjYyocUwGqMug= Received: by 10.48.232.6 with SMTP id e6mr185194nfh; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:38:17 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.49.87.9 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jan 2006 08:38:17 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <6928c5160601260838r649b6a3ar3f6d8f22a039bfd5@mail.gmail.com> Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2006 19:38:17 +0300 From: Andrey Chernyshev To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: javadoc vs. doxygen MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N 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 fo= r 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