harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Morozova, Nadezhda" <nadezhda.moroz...@intel.com>
Subject RE: [doc] What should be improved in DRLVM Doxygen documentation?
Date Fri, 03 Nov 2006 16:14:07 GMT
Thanks for your answers. A couple of comments below, and a generic
I still cannot understand why we should evaluate pages, not code
comments in source files. 

Example: the Wiki page now suggests that we improve the auto-generated
pages: modules.html (list of groups), annotated.html (list of classes),
files.html (list of files), etc. 
Now, these do not map to any specific header(s) - they are
auto-generated by analyzing all headers. For instance, modules.html is
about modules; any module maps to a @devgroup tag in code, and you can
use "@devgroup optional" to separate all optional functions in your
interface. Now, these modules are optional; creating them is not always
needed/good/easy. How exactly can you improve the page that is an
assembly of all modules? I'd say, we can have a recommendation for the
community to group any related functionality - but we cannot improve the
page or oblige authors to use groups :)
The same is for files, structures, etc. You can ask the whole authoring
lot to write definitions of headers using @file; @struct, etc in their
files. However, I don't see a way for 1-2 people volunteering and doing
an improvement to the files.html page, etc.

I guess a more realistic approach would be to measure amount of
documentation in headers. This way, we can have people volunteer to fix
things - like David L. did for bytecode.h! see - my way is working
already :0

Thank you, 
Nadya Morozova

-----Original Message-----
From: Alexei Fedotov [mailto:alexei.fedotov@gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 1:56 AM
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: [doc] What should be improved in DRLVM Doxygen


You asked good questions. Here are few answers:

1. Grouping of results is implied by documentation grouping. Scripts
can process any documentation bundle, so if one creates a smaller or
specific bundle, the list will be shorter, or more specific.Creating
several documentation bundles in different directories makes their
comparison an easy task - I can do this comparison.
[NM] yeah, good idea!

2. Personally I like @page tags and package.html files. I appreciate
Salikh's efforts of creating wonderful technical descriptions - I
referred to them as masterpieces. I also remember that you asked me to
create a narrative section for a component manager few months ago. All
Doxygen documentation will be on the web site. Why these narrative
sections shouldn't be evaluated?
[NM] I always say - the more docs the better. If you still feel you can
write a description of component manager, do so. My idea is that the
higher-level conceptual info does not have to be part of Doxygen. You
can write it on the website - with more HTML and XML presentation
opportunities. Doxygen is so tightly bound with code that you don't
really have to fit generics into it. You can place links back and fro
but write the stabler stuff on the website. Surely, @page, @section,
@devgroup, and @file tags are needed sometimes to tie definitions of
methods and classes into interfaces and components. Please don't think
that I am totally against them. I just think we can differentiate :)

3. I don't think the rating of pages such as a list of functions
should be neglected. Any .html page which can be viewed by a user
should be readable. That is a reason why I parse .html files in the
script, not sources.
[NM] I doubt that a really well-documented source can produce a poor
html :) 

4. I believe establishing connection between .html files and source
files can be automated. I don't know how to write a short script for
that, because sometimes .html page depends from several source files,
and vice versa.

5. You can imagine the following pie chart from the data: 2680 pages
of 2922 (91%) are not good and should be revised.
[NM] :(

6.  Today the community discussed removing GC V4. This would
immediately decrease GC documentation size. It would also decrease a
number of well documented pages on garbage collection, since new GCs
don't have as much comments in their code as old GC V4.
[NM] yeah, I read the news :)

Thank you for nice catches,

On 11/2/06, Morozova, Nadezhda <nadezhda.morozova@intel.com> wrote:
> Wow! Alexei, great start!
> ... and so many pages marked with 0 rank. I really appreciate your
> effort - it sets me back on earth and to work. I hope this rating
> also make owners of code more ambitious, and would inspire them to
> more/better comments to get a better rating :)
> Question on output measurement: can we rate source files or code
> elements (structure, functions, etc) instead of html files?
> My concerns:
> - Many html files are autogenerated, their rating is N/A. examples:
> todo.html, functions_vars_0x68.html (listing of links to functions in
> alphabetical order - there are many pages like that)
> - Some results are duplicated, because each struct/function has an
> individual rating + rating of the file/group reference it belongs to.
> - Some files have a high rating (see the top candidate, for example),
> but it's generated from comments marked with @page. These don't belong
> to specific code, but create a narrative section. Evaluating these is
> complex, and perhaps, should not be done. My personal preference would
> be to move such generic explanations to component docs on the website
> and reserve Doxygen docs to API reference as much as possible (this is
> subject for further discussion).
> - the listing of files is SO LONG... grouping them by
> file/component/type or otherwise organizing the output would make the
> whole rating more readable. I mean, from the current version, I can
> make out the leaders (not files even, individual bits of them), and
> understand that the majority have 0 rating. This has its instructional
> impact, but I cannot see the areas where we are the best - bearable -
> worst, or see the approx distribution of powers... missing that info
> leaves me without direction on what to do.
> Question on data presentation: do you think we can have some post
> processing of the raw data that your script produces - to see the big
> picture? We have some metrics: graphics, pie charts, anything. This
> would instantly show the most important conclusions. I could do such
> metrics and post them regularly on Wiki. If anybody says they need
> kind of info, I'd volunteer to help.
> Thank you,
> Nadya Morozova
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Fedotov, Alexei A [mailto:alexei.a.fedotov@intel.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2006 11:33 PM
> To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: [doc] What should be improved in DRLVM Doxygen documentation?
> Nadya, All,
> I have ranked the quality of Doxygen-generated DRLVM documentation and
> posted it to the following Wiki page:
>    http://wiki.apache.org/harmony/DRLVM_Documentation_Quality
> All are welcome to check masterpieces of our documentation. All
> volunteers are welcome to improve page ranks by editing comments in
> DRLVM sources.
> With best regards,
> Alexei Fedotov,
> Intel Java & XML Engineering

View raw message