> Well for one.. It breaks Alexandria... Turbine.java doesn't show up
> within the javadoc generation because it expects a class.
Ahahahahah...sorry, I had to laugh at this. If you look in the
build-turbine.xml file, there is a solution to this issue and you probably
should fix it in Alexandria instead since what I have done is legal...(...
for a reason)...keep reading...
<javadoc2 sourcepath="${build.src}"
sourcefiles="${build.src}/Turbine.java"
> >From the Java Language Specifcation: Chapter 7 (or p114 if you have the
> book)
>
> "For small programs and casual development, a package can be unnamed or
> have a simple name, but if the Java code is to be widely distributed,
> unique package names should be chosen. This can prevent the conflicts
> that would otherwise occur if two development groups happened to pick
> the same package name and these packages were later to be used in a
> single program."
> - The Java Language Specification
> ------
> .. so there. Straight form the bible :)
I won't state my opinions of bible's. ;-)
> I mean are there any benefits for it not having a package? If so then
> let's leave it. If not then let's move it to a package.
I already stated the benefits...I will re-state them again...
It makes it easier for users and ourselves supporting this project because
we do not need to teach each and every user how to setup aliasing within
their servlet engine. Unfortunately, this isn't something that is defined
in the 2.0 spec in order to make it easy for users.
-jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
