> -----Original Message----- > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Now I am thinking that > the build.xml could generate an overview.html based on > project.xml before invoking Javadoc. Is this too fancy? Is > duplication just better in this case?
I'd avoid modifying build.xml - this project gets built using Maven, and while were at it, we should generate build.xml via the Maven ant goal. ( Last time I tried this Gump did not like the build.xml file that Maven spit out, and when Gump breaks, I usually sigh, throw my hands in the air, and admit defeat. ) An overview.html based on project.xml - what do you mean? Do you mean an overview.html based on index.xml? Opt for a separate approach, we need a "how to use this nonsense" Javadoc the likes of Digester. Tim > > Gary > > -----Original Message----- > From: Tim OBrien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 11:49 > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > Cc: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' > Subject: RE: [codec] To do for 1.1.1 > > CC'ing Oleg K. Any issues with changing the capitalization > on URLCodec methods, per Gary's suggestion? > > Tim > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Gary Gregory [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 1:39 PM > > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > > Subject: RE: [codec] To do for 1.1.1 > > > > > > Here is another codec issue. > > > > In URLCodec there are too oddly named methods: urldecode() > > and urlencode(). The word-style caps are missing. I suggest > > these be renamed to decodeUrl() and encodeUrl(). > > > > Thoughts? > > > > Gary > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Tim O'Brien [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Monday, August 11, 2003 10:18 > > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > > Subject: Re: [codec] To do for 1.1.1 > > > > I've done the release work in the past, be happy to do it > > again. Or, if > > you would like, I'd be glad to have another partner in crime. > > > > When B. Walstrum submitted the code for DoubleMetaphone, I > > assigned an > > issue to him for a unit test. I haven't seen any action as > > of yet from > > him. > > > > I'd say in addition to a unit test for DoubleMetaphone, we're > > lacking good > > documentation (compared to Digester). > > > > Tim > > > > On Mon, 11 Aug 2003, Gary Gregory wrote: > > > > > Hello Codec, > > > > > > So, is the only to-do for a codec 1.1.1 a DoubleMetaphone > unit test? > > > > > > Who knows enough to write one and has the time to do so? > > > > > > Who does the release work for this component? > > > > > > Gary > > > > > > > -- > > ---------------------- > > Tim O'Brien > > Evanston, IL > > (847) 863-7045 > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
