I noticed that many java files in ActiveMQ have the license header as a javadoc but the HTML page does not show the license header. Example -
/** * Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more * contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with * this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership. * The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0 * (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with * the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at * * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and * limitations under the License. */ package org.apache.activemq.broker.region.cursors; import java.util.ArrayList; import java.util.Iterator; import java.util.LinkedList; import java.util.List; import org.apache.activemq.broker.ConnectionContext; import org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Destination; import org.apache.activemq.broker.region.MessageReference; import org.apache.activemq.broker.region.QueueMessageReference; /** * hold pending messages in a linked list (messages awaiting disptach to a * consumer) cursor * * */ public class VMPendingMessageCursor extends AbstractPendingMessageCursor {....... But this HTML does not show the license - http://activemq.apache.org/maven/5.11.0/apidocs/org/apache/activemq/broker/region/cursors/VMPendingMessageCursor.html With regards to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-129 , it would be nice to not kill the package-info.java but instead pack it with useful information. Thanks, Ganesh. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robbie Gemmell" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 10:35:16 AM Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java Yes thats what I do on all .java files, I'm not actually sure why we would put the header as a Javadoc. We dont particularly want it to show up visibly on the resulting documentation (and it isnt strictly required on generated files, only their source), and there isnt anything in there which we would need/want the javadoc parser to look at, so using comments seem more appropriate. Robbie On 2 June 2015 at 14:51, Jeff Mesnil <[email protected]> wrote: > why don't you simply use simple comment (/* */) instead of Javadoc > comments (/** */) for the license headers? > > On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Clebert Suconic > <[email protected]> wrote: >> We have our package-info.java with a license header basically. Instead >> of showing a nice statement about what the package is meant for, this >> is translating as "Licensed to Apache" on every package that has a >> package-info.java >> >> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/javadocs/javadoc-1.0.0/index.html >> >> >> The only exception was Filters that used the html old version for the >> package. >> >> >> >> Can we stop adding License Headers on package-info.java and instead >> have a better documentation about what the package is meant for? that >> way the javadoc would translate better. >> >> >> Or does anyone know a syntax that would allow us to have a license >> header and still a meaninful doc about the package? >> >> >> Thanks > > > > -- > Jeff Mesnil > [email protected] > http://jmesnil.net/weblog/
