Simon, I am very sorry, that I removed your documentation.
I will revert all classes, which containted stuff. On these classes I'll add the aditional link to SUN RI stuff, if any one is interested. And of course, I haven't said, that you copied! This was a fast shot. Is my solution for you ok ? -Matthias On 12/20/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi Matthias, > > I'm against your patch that removed all the javadoc that I carefully > wrote and added to these classes, and I would like to see this patch > reverted. > > The documentation that *was* on these classes is *not* copied from the > Sun stuff. It's cleanly reverse-engineered from the implementation. > > The Sun RI javadoc is horrible for everyday use. Sun have tried to > combine the goal of specification and documentation. This, however, > means that the RI javadoc is extremely formal and precise without > actually being *helpful*. > > The javadoc I wrote is *helpful* without necessarily being a formal > specification of the behaviour of the class. It's not a replacement for > the specification, it's an enhancement of it. And I believe it's a > valuable feature that MyFaces can offer over the Sun RI. > > In other words, both are useful. Adding a link from each class back to > the Sun RI javadoc (ie the specification) is fine, but I would really > like the docs I wrote to remain on these classes. > > Regards, > > Simon > > > Matthias Wessendorf wrote: > > some clazzes (EditableValueHolder) still contain some... javadoc. > > > > I am +1 on removing this. Only > > > > <snip> > > * see Javadoc of <a > > href="http://java.sun.com/j2ee/javaserverfaces/1.1_01/docs/api/index.html";>JSF > > Specification</a> > > * > > </snip> > > > > should be used. ok? > -- Matthias Wessendorf Zülpicher Wall 12, 239 50674 Köln http://www.wessendorf.net mwessendorf-at-gmail-dot-com
