Re: Use of JSF RI Javadocs in myfaces
Bruno Aranda wrote: Hi devs, I've talked with Ed Burns in the ##jsf irc channel and he has got a final answer on the question whether or not we can use the RI javadocs. He has said that we CAN'T use the JSF 1.1 Javadocs because it is not under the CDDL, but we CAN use the javadocs for JSF 1.2, That's good news. So the question is now: what should be done for the current release? (a) Write javadoc for the MyFaces API classes by copying from the JSF1.2 javadoc and trimming out the bits that aren't relevant to 1.1 (b) Go with javadoc reverse-engineered for the code for the current MyFaces releases, and merge in the JSF1.2 javadoc when MyFaces branches for 1.2 support? By the way, I've also asked on legal-discuss@apache.org about writing javadoc based on the code, and the opinions so far are that there is no problem with that. I'd therefore like to commit some docs as soon as there is a decision on A vs B above (written using approach B of course). Cheers, Simon
Re: Use of JSF RI Javadocs in myfaces
I would say definitely copy the JSF1.2 javadocs, but perhaps wait until they are finalized ? If you can add javadocs that are reverse engineered, and are even more detailed than the exisiting 1.1 stuff, then great!On 11/22/05, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:Bruno Aranda wrote: Hi devs, I've talked with Ed Burns in the ##jsf irc channel and he has got a final answer on the question whether or not we can use the RI javadocs. He has said that we CAN'T use the JSF 1.1 Javadocs because it is not under the CDDL, but we CAN use the javadocs for JSF 1.2,That's good news.So the question is now: what should be done for the current release?(a)Write javadoc for the MyFaces API classes by copying from the JSF1.2javadoc and trimming out the bits that aren't relevant to 1.1(b)Go with javadoc reverse-engineered for the code for the current MyFacesreleases, and merge in the JSF1.2 javadoc when MyFaces branches for 1.2support?By the way, I've also asked on legal-discuss@apache.org about writingjavadoc based on the code, and the opinions so far are that there is no problem with that. I'd therefore like to commit some docs as soon asthere is a decision on A vs B above (written using approach B of course).Cheers,Simon-- Grant Smith
Re: Use of JSF RI Javadocs in myfaces
Write a program that takes the JSF 1.1 and 1.2 docs, identifies the docs that are NOT identical to JSF 1.1 docs, and creates a patch for those that are the same. Then you should have a significant amount of the javadocs without using any JSF 1.1 docs :) Then it's just a matter of writing docs for things that have changed. I'd probably try to get as early a snapshot of the JSF 1.2 stuff as possible so the least amount of changes have occurred. On 11/22/05, Grant Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would say definitely copy the JSF1.2 javadocs, but perhaps wait until they are finalized ? If you can add javadocs that are reverse engineered, and are even more detailed than the exisiting 1.1 stuff, then great! On 11/22/05, Simon Kitching [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Bruno Aranda wrote: Hi devs, I've talked with Ed Burns in the ##jsf irc channel and he has got a final answer on the question whether or not we can use the RI javadocs. He has said that we CAN'T use the JSF 1.1 Javadocs because it is not under the CDDL, but we CAN use the javadocs for JSF 1.2, That's good news. So the question is now: what should be done for the current release? (a) Write javadoc for the MyFaces API classes by copying from the JSF1.2 javadoc and trimming out the bits that aren't relevant to 1.1 (b) Go with javadoc reverse-engineered for the code for the current MyFaces releases, and merge in the JSF1.2 javadoc when MyFaces branches for 1.2 support? By the way, I've also asked on legal-discuss@apache.org about writing javadoc based on the code, and the opinions so far are that there is no problem with that. I'd therefore like to commit some docs as soon as there is a decision on A vs B above (written using approach B of course). Cheers, Simon -- Grant Smith
