On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Matthias Friedrich <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > one thing I'd like to get into our next release is a first step > towards better API documentation. For this it would be helpful to > agree on a reduced set of packages intended for client use (the > "published" API). > > I used the javadoc tool's grouping and exclusion mechanism to only > display packages that I think should be part of the published API. > See [1] on how this could look like, compared to our current > documentation at [2]. Is this list correct? Did I miss something?
lib.join.* seems to be the biggest thing missing. > > With just some exclusions I got from 243 classes/interfaces down to > 158. We could reduce this even further by making implementation > classes package private where possible. I'll run an analysis as soon > as we have agreed on the set of published packages. > > I'm not sure about the "Other Packages" section. o.a.c.tool should > probably be removed, with its content thrown into the util package. > Part of the o.a.c.types looks like it would be better off in the > base package (PType, PTypeFamily) while the rest looks like helper > functionality for o.a.c.types.* that shouldn't be published. What > do you think? I have a sentimental attachment to o.a.c.tool b/c it reminds me of the Scrunch PipelineApp stuff, but on the other hand I never end up using it for anything. Agree w/you w/respect to moving much of the rest of o.a.c.util into o.a.c.types. J > > Regards, > Matthias > > [1] http://tmp.mafr.de/crunch/apidocs/0.4.0-incubating-SNAPSHOT/ > [2] http://incubator.apache.org/crunch/apidocs/0.3.0/
