> James' code isn't undocumented, but there are various uncommented members, > so Peter is trying to complete the documentation. The same can be said of > org.apache.poi. For example, AbstractFunctionPtg is missing javadocs for a > number of members.
I'll bite... While this is a tad offtopic... <soap-box> For one, some of the members are deliberately uncommented (I don't do inherited members as the javadoc will override the parent's). However, POI will not have a release with formulas enabled by default until its fixed. It will have "development builds" (alphas or "milestones") until then, but thats it. Why: its not of release quality. As evidence, formula support is still in early beta. So Noel, how long did it take you to find a class to use as an example, or did you just go down the left nav in alphabetical order? That one is a few layers deep and in the most beta of code! I'm impressed at your resolve! If you can find others I'll make a list of them and make sure I catch them all before +1'ing our next release. To take THAT a step further, some of the committers of POI would like a policy of requiring a unit test per class before release! That will likely pass for our 3.0 release. We'll probably need a few enhancements to Centipede to support "test-first" a little better before we draft that. Just FYI, the policy on this is covered here: http://jakarta.apache.org/poi/resolutions/res001.html and more or less here: http://jakarta.apache.org/site/source.html Its a quality thing. </soapbox> Anyhow, I'm just a guy trying to make hide or hair of james. My opinion shouldn't count for much, but I'll NEVER understand your position that javadoc isn't important enough to hold up a formal release. (I already said milestone and dev releases are reasonable, but I don't think YOU gave it a close read) Thanks, Andy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
