Re: Javadoc task not correctly interpreting ** in paths?

[Matthew Kuperus Heun]

Stefan:
Thanks for your response.
 > I'm trying to use the javadoc task with "Ant version 1.4.1 compiled
 on October 11 2001".  I don't think it handles "**" characters or
 implied "**" characters in pathelements of a nested sourcepath element.
<javadoc> is not a "directory based task", it doesn't support filesets
or patternsets.
I don't believe I'm using a fileset or patternset.  I'm just using a 
nested sourcepath element as the documentation suggests.

I assumed, however, that <javadoc> worked similar to <javac> (i.e., 
that it was "directory based").  Is there a list of tasks that are 
"directory based" in the docs?  I looked in the natural place 
(http://jakarta.apache.org/ant/manual/dirtasks.html) and didn't find 
it.

This begs the question: could <javadoc> be made into a "directory 
based task" and operate just like <javac>?  If not, why not?  It 
would seem natural since the javadoc command actually uses info from 
a javac pass over the files, according to Sun's documentation.  Would 
it be as simple as making <javadoc> extend MatchingTask instead of 
Task?

<path> and <pathelement> don't think that ** would be something
special, they'll go out and look for a file with two consecutive * in
their name.
Agreed, if <javadoc> is not "directory based".
 > See the snippet of my build.xml file below for the comments which
 discuss the errors I receive.
I see the snippet, but cannot understand what you want to achieve
there - trying to avoid listing the source directories explicitly?
Yes.  Exactly.  My doc task would require NO maintenance if I could say
<pathelement path="${basedir}/src/"/>
because any subdirectories added when the project grows would 
automatically be covered.  I wouldn't have to go into the build file 
and add the (potentially deeply nested) paths manually.

 >          <!-- The next line should be equivalent to the above code
          that works.  But, it fails, saying "No packages or classes
          specified." -->
 >     <!-- <pathelement path="${basedir}/src/"/> -->
why should it be equivalent? From your description, there is no com
directory inside of ${basedir}/src/, therefore the package
specification com.foo* won't match here.
I thought it should be equivalent because I assumed that an implied 
"**" would be appended and that it would, therefore, match

${basedir}/src/SrcDir1
and
${basedir}/src/SrcDir2
which DO contain "com" subdirectories.  It would also match other 
subdirectories, but none of them contain a "com" subdirectory and 
would, presumably, be ignored by <javadoc>.

Sorry if I wasn't exactly clear.
So, it seems the big question is: could <javadoc> be "directory-based"?
Cheers,
Matt
--
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>