Hi Matthias,
I'm against your patch that removed all the javadoc that I carefully
wrote and added to these classes, and I would like to see this patch
reverted.
The documentation that *was* on these classes is *not* copied from the
Sun stuff. It's cleanly reverse-engineered from the implementation.
The Sun RI javadoc is horrible for everyday use. Sun have tried to
combine the goal of specification and documentation. This, however,
means that the RI javadoc is extremely formal and precise without
actually being *helpful*.
The javadoc I wrote is *helpful* without necessarily being a formal
specification of the behaviour of the class. It's not a replacement for
the specification, it's an enhancement of it. And I believe it's a
valuable feature that MyFaces can offer over the Sun RI.
In other words, both are useful. Adding a link from each class back to
the Sun RI javadoc (ie the specification) is fine, but I would really
like the docs I wrote to remain on these classes.
Regards,
Simon
Matthias Wessendorf wrote:
some clazzes (EditableValueHolder) still contain some... javadoc.
I am +1 on removing this. Only
<snip>
* see Javadoc of <a
href="http://java.sun.com/j2ee/javaserverfaces/1.1_01/docs/api/index.html";>JSF
Specification</a>
*
</snip>
should be used. ok?
