You can change that from ..it is believed that this class does comply with the specification...
to: ...this class officialy complies to the specification. What have we passed the TCK for, if not for this ;) ? Yes, if you want to put efforts into this, you are heartily welcome to do so... It's not a question for legal at all if you derive it from the code and don't copy it over from the SUN doc. regards, Martin On 11/18/05, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Currently none of the JSF API classes (interfaces/abstract classes) have > any javadoc in them. I understand that this is due to Sun's copyright > over the actual specification and their refusal to allow that text to > appear in alternative implementations. > > This sucks very much, and clearly shows how little Sun understands open > source. > > However it sucks even more that the JSF classes distributed by MyFaces > don't have any javadoc and users (like me) must continually reference > the Sun-provided javadoc files for the actual details. > > As *implementing* the spec is legal, I would expect that deriving > javadoc from the code (rather than from the spec) would also be legal. > Of course the result is going to be very similar as the code was written > by referencing the specification, and would thus be almost as useful for > MyFaces users as the original spec docs. > > What is the feeling from MyFaces developers about patches to add javadoc > to the API classes, where the submitter (eg me) has explicitly derived > the docs from the code rather than the spec? Does anyone feel it's worth > floating this idea on the legal-discuss list? > > > Here's a proposed disclaimer that could be appended to the class javadoc > for each API class: > > /** > * ....docs derived from the code... > * <p> > * <i>Disclaimer</i> > * The official definition for the behaviour of this class is the JSF > * specification and for legal reasons the specification cannot be > * replicated here. Any javadoc present on this class therefore > * describes the current implementation rather than the officially > * required behaviour, though it is believed that this class does > * comply with the specification. > * <p> > * @author .... > * @version ... > */ > > > > Regards, > > > Simon > -- http://www.irian.at Your JSF powerhouse - JSF Consulting, Development and Courses in English and German Professional Support for Apache MyFaces
