We believe that these differences are sufficient in order to avoid potential licensing problems with Sun.
I'm not sure I understand where the licensing problems would come from.
Are you using any code from javadoc or Sun ? Are you implementing any Sun
APIs in XJavaDoc ?
No, not implementing any JavaDoc API at all. I think the main issue is that the API "mirrors" the com.sun.* API in terms of the source code model that it builds.
The only possible problem I can see is the name ( which is very close ).
And of course if the name itself is an issue.
2) Would it be fair to claim that XJavaDoc is *not* a clean room implementation of JavaDoc?
That's something only XJavaDoc authors you can tell, and nobody else. If you used JavaDoc source code in creating XJavaDoc - then it can't be a "clean room".
No, the source code of javadoc was not used in developing xjavadoc - just the public API was mirrored. ClassDoc (I think that's the com.sun.* name) maps to XClass, for example. The interface is not exactly the same, as Aslak pointed out. XJavaDoc uses bean style naming conventions, whereas javadoc's API does not.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
