Paul Elschot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 30/05/2007 23:57:47: > On Thursday 31 May 2007 05:52, Erik Hatcher wrote: > > > > On May 30, 2007, at 9:33 PM, Grant Ingersoll wrote: > > >> I'd rather see each jar get its own javadoc, > > >> or at the very least, indicate which jar each > > >> class is defined in for the ones that aren't > > >> part of the core. > > >> > > > > > > Yeah, I don't like that all the contribs are built in together. > > > What do others think? I would vote for separating them out. > > > > I concur with having the contrib docs separated. I may have been the > > one (or at least assisted with it) who got the documentation build to > > fold it altogether as that was the goal at the time. It'd be much > > easier, build-wise, if all artifacts were kept entirely separate for > > all the various contrib libraries and the core, as well as the demo. > > > Currently it is not clear in the javadocs whether a class belongs > to core or contrib. Having separate javadocs would probably > improve that. > I have no experience in linking between javadoc "packages", > so I have no suggestion on how to make such a separation.
I am all for separation. Though it is sometimes useful to have it all together, - perhaps two versions: all, and by module (core, contrib/x, contrib/y, etc.)? Or is this too cluttered - we already have it by release... --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
