lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Doron Cohen <DOR...@il.ibm.com>
Subject Re: Documentation Brainstorming
Date Thu, 31 May 2007 07:07:59 GMT
Paul Elschot <paul.elschot@xs4all.nl> wrote on 30/05/2007 23:57:47:

> On Thursday 31 May 2007 05:52, Erik Hatcher wrote:
> >
> > On May 30, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote:
> > >> I'd rather see each jar get its own javadoc,
> > >> or at the very least, indicate which jar each
> > >> class is defined in for the ones that aren't
> > >> part of the core.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Yeah, I don't like that all the contribs are built in together.
> > > What do others think?  I would vote for separating them out.
> >
> > I concur with having the contrib docs separated.  I may have been the
> > one (or at least assisted with it) who got the documentation build to
> > fold it altogether as that was the goal at the time.  It'd be much
> > easier, build-wise, if all artifacts were kept entirely separate for
> > all the various contrib libraries and the core, as well as the demo.
>
>
> Currently it is not clear in the javadocs whether a class belongs
> to core or contrib. Having separate javadocs would probably
> improve that.
> I have no experience in linking between javadoc "packages",
> so I have no suggestion on how to make such a separation.

I am all for separation.
Though it is sometimes useful to have it all together, - perhaps two
versions: all, and by module (core, contrib/x, contrib/y, etc.)?
Or is this too cluttered - we already have it by release...


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: java-dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: java-dev-help@lucene.apache.org


Mime
View raw message