What I mean is that private fields aren't included in Javadoc by default, so in general you won't see the field at all, never mind the fact that it is annotated with @BXML.
It's not *harmful* to add @Documented to @BXML - I just don't think it's going to have much effect, that's all. G On Aug 8, 2011, at 10:18 AM, Chris Bartlett wrote: > 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. >> >>
