Oh cool. Glad to hear it's not a Groovydoc bug. I created GROOVY-7525 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/GROOVY-7525> to add the additional package.html files.
While I was examining the code to create the Jira, I noticed that in the main code - org.codehaus.groovy.antlr.parser is an empty package, can we delete it? - org.codehaus.groovy.tools.xml contains only a package.html, can we delete the package? Should I also create a Jira for merging the Groovydoc fix to the 2.4 branch? -Keegan On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 8:56 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote: > Am 24.07.2015 14:23, schrieb Paul King: > [...] > >> If you replace latest with next in the url, you'll see the same problem >> isn't there. We had briefly the header comment accidentally having /** >> at the beginning instead of /*. >> > > but should that really matter? They are not in the right place to count as > javadoc for the class. Is that a... what was it again? qdoc? A bug in qdoc? > > Also, are we considering creating package-info.html / >>> package-info.java files? >>> >> >> We have some package.html files but not many package-info.groovy (or >> Java) files. >> > > but aren't the package-info.html files ignored too? I mean their content > is supposed to how up on > http://docs.groovy-lang.org/latest/html/gapi/groovy/lang/package-summary.html > as well, or not? groovy/lang has a package-info.html file. > > At one point such files caused problems for Grails (was it >> Tomcat's classloader having issues with classnames containing hyphens?). >> I think we excluded/disabled some part of our package-info support. So >> it might be easy to re-enable but we'll need to test with Grails. >> > > there was something, yes.... don't remember the details though atm. > > > bye blackdrag > > -- > Jochen "blackdrag" Theodorou > blog: http://blackdragsview.blogspot.com/ > >
