No. I had the same issue. The generated Java code looked ok (for generated code at least) and I could not really understand why the Java compiler was complaining there. Maybe you should open an issue (https://github.com/typesafehub/genjavadoc) there.
On Sat, Sep 20, 2014 at 11:52 AM, Aljoscha Krettek <[email protected]> wrote: > @Robert: Did you get genjavadoc to run? The problem I have right now > is that the Java compiler complains because it cannot compile those > fake java files generated by genjavadoc. > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 6:53 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I updated my branch with some changes. Let me know what you think. > > > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Robert Metzger <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Mh. I'm actually preferring the old navigation style. > >> The new navigation requires users to have JavaScript enabled (I know a > lot > >> of people who use NoScript). > >> What I also liked about the old layout is that you can see very easily > >> which pages are there. > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:37 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >>> I guess the added value are the examples, which are nice to have for > >>> someone that is learning. > >>> > >>> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Aljoscha Krettek <[email protected] > > > >>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > About the "Java API Transformations" Page. Why do we have it? The > >>> > operations are described in the Javadoc for DataSet and Grouping. > >>> > Having it duplicated here just means that we always have to keep it > in > >>> > sync. We could just have a link to the Javadoc in the Programming > >>> > Guide in addition to the operations overview. > >>> > > >>> > What do you think? > >>> > > >>> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:48 PM, Kostas Tzoumas <[email protected] > > > >>> > wrote: > >>> > > I like the new look as well. You could call it "Contents" > >>> > > > >>> > > Kostas > >>> > > > >>> > > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:40 PM, Aljoscha Krettek < > [email protected] > >>> > > >>> > > wrote: > >>> > > > >>> > >> Yes, I know, their documentation structure is quite good and I'm > >>> > >> obviously inspired by it. :D Does anyone think this could become a > >>> > >> problem? > >>> > >> > >>> > >> The problem with "Overview" is that it is not clear whether it's > an > >>> > >> overview of the documentation or Apache Flink in general. But ok, > >>> > >> let's go with Overview if no-one objects. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I mention the Programming Guide in the first Paragraph but If you > come > >>> > >> up with something better feel free to add it. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> I think doing PRs agains my repo should be easiest. > >>> > >> > >>> > >> @robert: I'm now also generating the javadoc via jekyll, it's in > >>> > >> _plugins/copy_api_dirs.rb > >>> > >> > >>> > >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:27 PM, Ufuk Celebi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >> > I like it very much, but a) there are some typos and minor > issues, > >>> > and b) > >>> > >> > it looks very much like [1] (I'm pointing this out without any > >>> > >> judgement). > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > Regaring a) Should we post issues here or do a PR against your > repo? > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > - I don't like the top link "Doc"... let's just called it what > it > >>> is: > >>> > >> > "Overview". > >>> > >> > - And maybe let's put more attention on the link "Flink > Programming > >>> > >> Guide" > >>> > >> > under "Programming Guides" somehow, because this is the "main" > >>> > >> programming > >>> > >> > guide. > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > [1] https://spark.apache.org/docs/latest/ > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Aljoscha Krettek < > >>> > [email protected]> > >>> > >> > wrote: > >>> > >> > > >>> > >> >> I updated the Documentation, now I need some eyeballs to look > this > >>> > >> >> thing over so could you please have a look and tell me what you > >>> > think. > >>> > >> >> :D > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> I added and overview page, the programming guide and the > examples > >>> are > >>> > >> >> now unified. I also did some little touchups here and there. > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> To build it just checkout my scala-rework branch and run the > docs > >>> > build > >>> > >> >> script: > >>> > >> >> https://github.com/aljoscha/incubator-flink/tree/scala-rework > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> cd docs > >>> > >> >> ./build_docs.sh -p > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:50 AM, Kostas Tzoumas < > >>> > [email protected]> > >>> > >> >> wrote: > >>> > >> >> > +1 > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > I think a standalone docs site with a different nav bar will > be > >>> > more > >>> > >> >> > usable. > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 11:03 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > >>> > >> [email protected]> > >>> > >> >> > wrote: > >>> > >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > However, this would make the documentation even more > >>> > complicated. > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> Exactly, that's what I'm trying to avoid. > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> If nobody has anything against it I will try to make the > >>> > >> documentation > >>> > >> >> >> self contained, move navigation to the top bar, and > generally > >>> make > >>> > >> >> >> things less cumbersome. :D > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Robert Metzger < > >>> > >> [email protected]> > >>> > >> >> >> wrote: > >>> > >> >> >> > Hi Aljoscha, > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > I think it should not be too difficult to have different > menu > >>> > >> layouts > >>> > >> >> for > >>> > >> >> >> > the different versions of the website documentation. > However, > >>> > this > >>> > >> >> would > >>> > >> >> >> > make the documentation even more complicated. > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > I'm also unhappy with the current setup of the > documentation. > >>> > The > >>> > >> >> >> > maintenance is quite time-consuming, so I'm happy if you > come > >>> up > >>> > >> with > >>> > >> >> a > >>> > >> >> >> > simpler approach. > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > I agree with having a self contained documentation. This > would > >>> > also > >>> > >> >> allow > >>> > >> >> >> > us to make it part of the release votes and ship it with > the > >>> > binary > >>> > >> >> >> > releases. > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > I think it would be fine to just hardcode a link to > >>> > >> >> >> > flink.incubator.apache.org into the standalone > documentation. > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > Robert > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 9:45 AM, Aljoscha Krettek < > >>> > >> >> [email protected]> > >>> > >> >> >> > wrote: > >>> > >> >> >> > > >>> > >> >> >> >> Hi, > >>> > >> >> >> >> I'm right now rewriting the documentation to unify the > Java > >>> > >> API/Scala > >>> > >> >> >> >> API parts with tabs to switch between language (mentioned > >>> that > >>> > >> >> before, > >>> > >> >> >> >> I know. :D). > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> The problem is now that the doc is very tightly > integrated > >>> into > >>> > >> the > >>> > >> >> >> >> website. For example, the sidebar of links is part of the > >>> > website. > >>> > >> >> >> >> (The self contained doc also has the sidebar of links, > but if > >>> > you > >>> > >> >> look > >>> > >> >> >> >> closely you will notice it's slightly different.) It is > the > >>> > same > >>> > >> for > >>> > >> >> >> >> the 0.6 doc and the 0.7 doc, which doesn't work well when > >>> those > >>> > >> two > >>> > >> >> >> >> docs have different pages with differing names. > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> Would it not be easier to make the documentation > completely > >>> > self > >>> > >> >> >> >> contained (as it already is) and copy the built files > into > >>> the > >>> > >> >> >> >> website's doc folder. The website would then just have > links > >>> to > >>> > >> the > >>> > >> >> >> >> documentation for the separate versions. > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> The problem would then be that the documentation doesn't > >>> share > >>> > the > >>> > >> >> >> >> same header as the website anymore. I don't see this as a > >>> > >> problem, we > >>> > >> >> >> >> could even move the documentation navigation into the > header > >>> > and > >>> > >> out > >>> > >> >> >> >> of the sidebar. Some people might object though. > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> What do you think? How should we handle this? > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> >> Cheers, > >>> > >> >> >> >> Aljoscha > >>> > >> >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> >> > >>> > >> >> > >>> > >> > >>> > > >>> >
