> -----Original Message----- > From: Jerome Lacoste [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 2:03 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: RE: Plugin properties suggestion > > On Tue, 2004-06-29 at 13:49, Eric Pugh wrote: > > I like the idea.. > > me too > > > Would the next logical step be to verify as well that anything in > > plugin.properties was listed in the properties.xml file? It seems > > that pretty much anything in plugin.properties should be documented. > > sounds good to me.
This seems easy > > > You could also apply the same logic to goals as well. > > In that case, maybe the proposal should be reworked into > using an XML file called plugin-doc.xml where properties are > just a sub part of the full tree. Goals would be added. > > That makes it more extensible, and then you don't have > hundreds of files for your doc. It's different for goals as you can't generate the jelly script from the xml. Maybe the inverse, document goals in plugin.jelly and transform it into a xdoc file. > > Jerome > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For > additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
