I agree with all these suggestions. In the SCA javadoc downloadable
archive I would include the spec API along with tuscany-api,
tuscany-host-api, and tuscany-spi. (Perhaps this is what you meant
by *-api).
This downloadable javadoc archive could either be combined with the
downloadable standalone distribution, or separate from it. See my
latest response to Jim for the reasons why I think it would be
better to have this as a part of the standalone binary distribution
on the download site for this release. However, I don't think the
same considerations apply to the standalone distribution that we
will publish to the maven repo. I would expect users of this
version to use maven to get the javadoc from the maven repo as well.
So my suggestion would be to not include javadoc in the standalone
runtime that we publish to the maven repo but to include it in the
binary/standalone version that we place on our web site for download.
Simon
Jeremy Boynes wrote:
The maven javadoc goal by default generates a -javadoc.jar for every
artifact it produces and allows that to be deployed to the repo. I
believe it does this because that is the format expected by the
different IDEs (it certainly is for IDEA and I think Raymond said it
worked for Eclipse as well). I think we would be wise to follow this
convention.
That would mean that e.g. for -api there would be
tuscany-api-${version}-javadoc.jar
in the repo.
I agree that we should just do *-api and -spi.
I also think we should do aggregated javadoc for all those modules
online on the website. We could make an archive of that available on
the download site (but I don't think we need to do that through the
maven repos).
--
Jeremy
On 11/1/06, Jim Marino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Nov 1, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Raymond Feng wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think it would be useful to package java in our M2 binary distro.
> I would like to hear your opinions:
I'd say as a separate downloadable jar since this would only be
relevant to extensions providers and not applications developers.
>
> 1) What modules should we generate javadoc? I assume only for *-api
> and *-spi.
yes. Core is not an exposed api/spi.
> 2) Should we package the javadoc with the standalone distro or as a
> separate archive?
separate archive
>
> Thanks,
> Raymond
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Simon C Nash IBM Distinguished Engineer
Hursley Park, Winchester, UK [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tel. +44-1962-815156 Fax +44-1962-818999
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
