Write a program that takes the JSF 1.1 and 1.2 docs, identifies the docs that are NOT identical to JSF 1.1 docs, and creates a patch for those that are the same.
Then you should have a significant amount of the javadocs without using any JSF 1.1 docs :) Then it's just a matter of writing docs for things that have changed. I'd probably try to get as early a snapshot of the JSF 1.2 stuff as possible so the least amount of changes have occurred. On 11/22/05, Grant Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I would say definitely copy the JSF1.2 javadocs, but perhaps wait until they > are finalized ? > If you can add javadocs that are reverse engineered, and are even more > detailed than the exisiting 1.1 stuff, then great! > > > On 11/22/05, Simon Kitching < [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Bruno Aranda wrote: > > > Hi devs, > > > > > > I've talked with Ed Burns in the ##jsf irc channel and he has got a > > > final answer on the question whether or not we can use the RI > > > javadocs. He has said that we CAN'T use the JSF 1.1 Javadocs because > > > it is not under the CDDL, but we CAN use the javadocs for JSF 1.2, > > > > That's good news. > > > > So the question is now: what should be done for the current release? > > > > (a) > > Write javadoc for the MyFaces API classes by copying from the JSF1.2 > > javadoc and trimming out the bits that aren't relevant to 1.1 > > > > (b) > > Go with javadoc reverse-engineered for the code for the current MyFaces > > releases, and merge in the JSF1.2 javadoc when MyFaces branches for 1.2 > > support? > > > > > > By the way, I've also asked on legal-discuss@apache.org about writing > > javadoc based on the code, and the opinions so far are that there is no > > problem with that. I'd therefore like to commit some docs as soon as > > there is a decision on A vs B above (written using approach B of course). > > > > Cheers, > > > > Simon > > > > > > -- > Grant Smith >
