> > : Guess there are no reservations on the subject; I'll enhance the > : documentation of this mechanism. > > Sorry ... i'm a little behind on my mail ...
I think I know what you mean... > I wouldn't go advertising it *too* heavily ... i think directly using > FieldCache is definitely an "Expert" level thing, and we tend to keep the > documentation on Expert level stuff minimal with the assumption that > people diging in to that level will familiarize themselves with the code a > bit not just read the javadocs. That's the "tendency" I thought I am identifying, but wasn't sure. > that said .. i think it's pretty hard ot have too much javadocs ... > inhancing hte ____ javadocs to explain what ____ is and how it can be used > is always good (wether the blank is field in with FieldCache or the name of > any other class) but i don't think we need to promote it heavily from the > top package level javadocs where it might confuse people looking for basic > info on the simple aspects of the API. Sounds fair to me - so I'll just javadoc the class/interface - will do it in an issue/patch, so any over exposure can be reviewed before committing. Guess suggesting to use this in user-list replies would be considered "over advertising", but too late at least for http://www.nabble.com/Best-way-to-returning-hits-after-search--tf3304485.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
