It won't interfere with your @todo or @param or whatever, because no code
will ever ask for anything particular inside the value of your tags that
don't follow the "XML" syntax.
If you have:
@todo three blind mice
XTag.value() would return "three blind mice" without any problem.
However, if you try to do a XTag.attributeValue(whatever), you'll get
nothing (null)
The tags that use the "bad" syntax (e.g. @weblogic:table-name COUNTRY) will
have to be changed to something like @weblogic:table name="COUNTRY".
It can be retrieved with XTag.attributeValue("name");
All the tag parsing logic should be in xjavadoc.XTag, and no code should try
to extract (for example) the second token of the value of the tag.
In other words, no code should try to extract the "blind" in the example
above.
I hope you understand what I mean.
Aslak
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Erik Hatcher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: 17. mars 2002 19:35
> To: Aslak Hellesoy; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Xdoclet-devel] many different tag formats?
>
>
> I like the idea of tightening up the syntax.... but that wreaks
> havoc on my
> usage of @todo! :(
>
> Erik
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Aslak Hellesoy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Sunday, March 17, 2002 1:26 PM
> Subject: [Xdoclet-devel] many different tag formats?
>
>
> > Hi all.
> >
> > The pre-xjavadoc xdoclet supports many different tag formats:
> >
> > 1) @once upon="a"
> > 2) @while in the
> > 3) @wild
> > 4) @west there
> >
> > I suggest that we refactor/remove all places where format 2) and 4) are
> > used. In other words, a tag can have zero or more parameters (or
> attributes
> > as I'd rather prefer to call them). This would be analogue to
> XML syntax:
> >
> > a) <once upon="a"/>
> > b) <while in the/>
> > c) <wild/>
> > d) <west there/>
> >
> > As you know, b) and d) is not valid XML, but 1) and 3) is. It's a bit
> messy
> > the way it is now. I know that this will break backwards compatibility
> with
> > some sources out there, but the next release is a major one (xjavadoc is
> > soon in), and I think we can justify it. Moreover, with the advent of
> > reverse xdoclet, xtags and xdoclet gui, it's preferrable to have a
> "cleaner"
> > syntax. What say ye?
> >
> > Aslak
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Xdoclet-devel mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
> >
>
_______________________________________________
Xdoclet-devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-devel
