Choosing not to include it in Javadocs it is fine if we are certain that it is of no value, or is detrimental in some way. I don't see how it it would be detrimental, and it might be useful to some people, so I would prefer to include it.
Or let me put it this way - if annotations were *included* in Javadocs by default (as opposed to being *excluded* by default), I wouldn't be able to suggest a good reason to *exclude* the @BXML annotation. On 8 August 2011 21:07, Greg Brown <gk_br...@verizon.net> wrote: >> I'm not saying that it would help to enhance the Pivot API Javadocs in >> any way. Just that it would be there for Pivot consumers when they >> generate Javadocs for their own code that uses @BXML. > > @BXML is primarily meant for application, not platform, usage anyways, so > that's OK. I'm just wondering about the overall utility of adding the > @Documented annotation to it, since most of the time your @BXML-annotated > fields are going to be private, and (I'd guess that) most Javadoc does not > include private members. > >
