On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for looking into this for us Craig. > > Seems like a big waste of effort for us to reinvent that wheel. > > Besides if we document the methods incorrectly we probably won't be > spec compliant :-)
Hmm ... I don't remember any TCK tests that checked the English language stuff ... just the Java language stuff :-). > > TTFN, > > -bd- Craig > > On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote: > > > So, the question is about copying the JavaDocs from the RI's > > jsf-api.jar file, but not the code? I'm gonna have to ask what the > > precise rules are and get back to you on that. > > > > Craig > > > > > > On 7/21/05, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> Sorry, that was the answer to the other proposal ;-) > >> > >> For the JavaDoc stuff, le'ts hear what Craig can tell us... > >> > >> Bruno > >> > >> 2005/7/21, Bruno Aranda <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >> > >>> +1 > >>> > >>> For me it is better to introduce a new dependency if we can create > >>> better tests (and faster) than using nasty workarounds... > >>> > >>> Bruno > >>> > >>> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >>> > >>>> Hi All, > >>>> > >>>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I > >>>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long > >>>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to > >>>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding > >>>> tests to > >>>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these > >>>> classes. > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> TTFN, > >>>> > >>>> -bd- > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > >
