Jann Forrer wrote:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Michael Wechner schrieb:
Andreas Hartmann wrote:
Hi Lenya devs,
ATM we build the javadocs for all modules separately. This wouldn't
be necessary if all modules used a package convention, e.g.
API: org.apache.lenya.modules.foo
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.util
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.xyz
Impl: org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.impl
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.util.impl
org.apache.lenya.modules.foo.xyz.impl
what about custom packages? I guess you still would have to build them
separately?
What do you mean with "custom packages"?
IMO the convention makes sense independently from the javadocs. For
instance, you can tell from the declaration of a sitemap component which
module it belongs to.
That is true. Today I often have to search for a component using find
-name ;-)
I guess we'd have to postpone this to the next major release, though,
because it would break backwards compatibility.
break backwards compatibility just because of javadocs?
Like I said, the change doesn't make sense in the stable branch.
I think backward compatibility should only be broken due to really good
reasons and I am not sure whether the above convention really justify
it. If it is decided to break backwards compatibility we should at least
present a migration path.
Jann
I would find it to be quite nice to have all of the module documentation
end up in the same javadoc set. This is probably something to be
targeted at 3.0, as we wouldn't be breaking compatibility at that point.
Richard
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
