I prefer to gen JavaDoc in the nightly site gen run, from the parent.
Avoids the problem you mentioned.  You could run a site gen multiple times
per day, if it's not a long duration.

These days, IDEs such as Eclipse display JavaDoc pulled directly from
source, so you could avoid a JavaDoc gen entirely if you configure the IDE
correctly.

And, as your code base grows, the build time will slow - so not the time to
gen JavaDoc at any phase of the normal build.


On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 10:53 PM, Eric Kolotyluk <[email protected]>wrote:

> Normally I would agree with that, but this is an early stage of development
> and the javadocs are changing frequently, and I'm putting more stuff in them
> that would normally be documented elsewhere.
>
> Thanks for the advice though, I'll try to study the release process a
> little more to see if I'm missing something and trying to do more work than
> I need to.
>
> Cheers, Eric
>
> On 2011-08-08 5:40 PM, Barrie Treloar wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 10:02 AM, Eric Kolotyluk
>> <[email protected]>  wrote:
>>
>>> I was generating javadocs with the maven-javadoc-plugin in the package
>>> phase, but ran into problems because other modules had not been through
>>> the
>>> install phase yet. To get around the problem I changed it to the deploy
>>> phase, but I'm not sure if this is the best place to do it.
>>>
>>> How do most people handle their javadoc generation in Maven? Is there
>>> some
>>> best practices documented about this?
>>>
>> I let the release process handle this for me as there is not much
>> value in javadocs for SNAPSHOTS, you want the source instead.
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>> users-unsubscribe@maven.**apache.org<[email protected]>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>
>>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
> users-unsubscribe@maven.**apache.org<[email protected]>
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>
>

Reply via email to