----- Original Message ----- From: "Stefan Bodewig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 23:35 Subject: Re: javadoc changes: have they broken xdoclet?
> On Mon, 29 Apr 2002, Steve Loughran <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (2) sourcepath elements that don't contain any .java files for > packages we want to generate docs for will be dropped. > > The later one happens because all sourcepath, packagenames and > excludepackages entries will now be munged into packagesets internally > and only those sets that contain something interesting will be > considered. hmm, I wonder if there is a defect in how the notion of 'interesting' is determined? > > I did a complete Gump run before I committed the changes and found > that I had to trim the package names (the old code did so as well) > because xml-security's buildfile has an - erm - interesting way to > specify the packages. I couldn't find any other problems, but that > doesn't mean that there aren't any. did you try doing a test run of our own xdoc proposal? It aint working no more either. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
