incubator-crunch-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Josh Wills <josh.wi...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Javadoc improvements
Date Mon, 08 Oct 2012 21:45:35 GMT
On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Matthias Friedrich <matt@mafr.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> one thing I'd like to get into our next release is a first step
> towards better API documentation. For this it would be helpful to
> agree on a reduced set of packages intended for client use (the
> "published" API).
>
> I used the javadoc tool's grouping and exclusion mechanism to only
> display packages that I think should be part of the published API.
> See [1] on how this could look like, compared to our current
> documentation at [2]. Is this list correct? Did I miss something?

lib.join.* seems to be the biggest thing missing.

>
> With just some exclusions I got from 243 classes/interfaces down to
> 158. We could reduce this even further by making implementation
> classes package private where possible. I'll run an analysis as soon
> as we have agreed on the set of published packages.
>
> I'm not sure about the "Other Packages" section. o.a.c.tool should
> probably be removed, with its content thrown into the util package.
> Part of the o.a.c.types looks like it would be better off in the
> base package (PType, PTypeFamily) while the rest looks like helper
> functionality for o.a.c.types.* that shouldn't be published. What
> do you think?

I have a sentimental attachment to o.a.c.tool b/c it reminds me of the
Scrunch PipelineApp stuff, but on the other hand I never end up using
it for anything. Agree w/you w/respect to moving much of the rest of
o.a.c.util into o.a.c.types.

J

>
> Regards,
>   Matthias
>
> [1] http://tmp.mafr.de/crunch/apidocs/0.4.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/
> [2] http://incubator.apache.org/crunch/apidocs/0.3.0/

Mime
View raw message