Hi Simon K., We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually retyping the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since it's not copied directly it seems it's allowed.
~ Simon On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into > myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc > descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission > would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file > licensed under the Apache license... > > In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy > any javadoc from the spec.. > > Regards, > Simon > > >> Simon Lessard wrote: > >> > >>> To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and @return, > >>> which > >>> is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and doesn't > >>> specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it better to > match > >>> the official API or to make checkstyle happy? > >>> > >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Simon Lessard > >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Hi all, > >>>> > >>>> It seems that checkstyle doesn't like JSF's official JavaDoc. > Personally > >>>> I > >>>> would give higher priority to completed comments than checkstyle > whining, > >>>> what you guys think about it? > >>>> > >>>> > >
