Any other thoughts about this? Should we put it to a vote? If not, I'll open a JIRA issue and someone can grab / fix.
Eddie On 8/28/05, Rich Feit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I totally agree about excluding JavaDoc for "internal" packages. Nice > catch. I'm happy to do this if you haven't done it locally already. > > Rich > > Eddie O'Neil wrote: > > > In looking through the NetUI Javadoc, I've found a few things that > >need to be fixed before 1.0. These include: > > > >- the netui/src/core package isn't being Javadoc'ed > >- the Javadoc is labeled in the title as "Page Flow API" rather than "NetUI > >API" > >- the Controls / WSM / system control Javadoc page titles are > >inconsistent with the NetUI ones. Will make all of them say something > >like "Beehive xyz API Documentation" > >- the Javadoc window titles don't include the version number > > > >In NetUI, we are also Javadoc'ing **/internal/** packages, which means > >that things we've (to date) considered non-public APIs are being > >doc'ed along with the rest of the public API. Rich, you've had > >thoughts on this before -- maybe we should remove them if we consider > >them "internal" APIs. > > > > Should have this changes in the list above checked in momentarily. > > > > Thoughts on the **/internal/** Javadoc? > > > >Eddie > > > > > > >
