> > how to setup a database URL (which is correct in the
> > CVS, and wrong in the current download).
> If this is the case it because the docs have been fixed.
Exactly. The CVS has corrected documentation that should be made available
to the user community.
> you should only consider the relevance of the stable "release"
> versions' documentation
I was refering to 2.0a3, which IS the latest "stable Release Build."
> Furthermore James has never released a Beta quality version yet,
Perhaps not, but in Apache terminology, James 2.0a3 is a Release Build. If
you are saying that James should never have had a Release, only a Milestone,
I won't argue the point.
> I subscribe to Andy's opinion that James is hard for a new user to get
> started with ...
So do I. But that has to do with end user documentation, not javadocs,
except for the headers on Matchers & Mailets that contain samples, which
I've been fixing as I spot them.
On the one hand, Andy is taking an all-or-nothing position on javadocs (if
we don't have them all, we have nothing); on the other hand, he said "If I
weren't a semi-decent Java developer I couldn't even set up JAMES."
Contrary to his accusations, I've recently found, fixed and documented
various issues involving the spooler (locking, the mysterious NPE, the
reason why a message might no longer be in the spool after accept() gives it
to you); the potential for an infinite loop involving Forward;
address-literals; discrepancies between RFCs and the size of database
fields; and more. Fortunately, I have a sense of humor.
> a +1 vote for a release binds the voter to support that release
A good policy. :-) I've been doing that even without a vote. And that's
why I want to see a new release, because it will be easier to support.
As for the javadocs, I agree with everything you said about the value of
code documentation. In every case, everyone says that it is important, no
one has said anything about not documenting or slowing documentation. The
only issue is whether or not to update what is currently published with what
is available. It is a matter of improvement while continuing towards
perfection.
The fact remains that 2.0a3 is out there as a Release Build. For better or
for worse. If 2.1aX is an improvement, as we all seem to believe that it is
(or is close to being), then it should be put out as the next incremental
step on the road. Andy views that statement as tantamount to dismissing
javadocs as worthless. I view his approach as being roughly the same as
saying my transmission needs an overhaul so I'll skip the oil changes until
I can afford to pay for the major service. Both things need to be done, and
are continuing apace.
--- Noel
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
