+1 for option 2. Peter
On 2/21/06, Stefan Bodewig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi all, > > you can tell javadoc what to document by passing in either package > names or source files. Our task supports both notions and provides > several options to specify the packages, the most common one is to > state where the source hierarchy is and explicitly provide patterns > that match the packages we want to document. > > The way it works is that each pattern is turned into an include > pattern for a DirSet and then each directory given as source path is > scanned (and matched directories translated into package names). > > If no patterns have been specified, the task won't scan any > directories at all. > > The docs say the packagenames attribute is optional - since you only > need to specify it if you really point to the source tree rather than > the source files themselves. > > This leads to the situation that if you point to your source tree and > don't provide any patterns for packages, Ant will claim you hadn't > specified any sources or packages at all. This has been that way > since, well, ever. > > I think we could do better and at least one person filing a bug > reports seems to agree. The options I see: > > (1) better document that package patterns are required if you only > point to the source hierarchy. This is the fully backwards compatible > option. > > (2) If no patterns have been specified at all, implicitly assume > packagenames="*" and match all packages that have been found. This is > not backwards compatible since builds that have been breaking prior to > that change would suddenly start building. > > I don't see much danger in this type of backwards incompatibility (and > thus prefer option 2) but wanted to gather some feedback before > enabling it. > > Stefan > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
