> On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:26 PM, Shawn McKinney <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> On Feb 1, 2016, at 12:07 PM, Stefan Seelmann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 3. Fortress Rest >>> >>> a. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41.jar >>> b. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41.war >>> c. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41-javadoc.jar >>> d. fortress-rest-1.0-RC41-sources.jar >>> >>> 4. Fortress Web >>> >>> a. fortress-web-1.0-RC41.war >>> b. fortress-web-1.0-RC41-classes.jar >>> c. fortress-web-1.0-RC41-sources.jar >> >> Not sure if the additional "classes" classifier is required, the type >> "jar" may be enough. >> >> And as above, what about Javadoc? > > Agreed: remove the word ‘classes’ from the jar’s name. > > I have a moderate inclination to proceed pushing javadoc jars into maven. > It’s convenient and can’t think of a reason not to.
wrt to the fortress-rest javadoc question. The services inputs are documented in javadoc format: http://symas.com/javadocs/enmasse/org/openldap/enmasse/FortressService.html For now, this might help those integrating into its rest apis. Eventually it’ll move into a separate doc. It prolly doesn’t belong here (in javadoc). Thanks, Shawn
