> IMHO (as an end user, and occasional contributor to templates and > casual code browser) the xdoclet code seems to be horribly complicated > and inelegant. Of course, I could be completely wrong (I hope I am, in > fact), but it seems that as things progress, the code gets even more > obscure, and the barrier to entry becomes harder and harder. >
I totally agree with you on that one. XDoclet is a hairball inside (although it works pretty well). (I know of a few other successful projects that are hairballs too). Learning, maintaining and building XDoclet has become a (too) difficult task, and that's why we have started a rewrite of XDoclet: XDoclet2. It will have a more maintainable build system (Maven) (I refuse to discuss Maven with you Hani :-)), more JUnit tests, better design, blablabla. If you (or anybody else!) would take the time to look at the current XDoclet2 sources, we'd be extremely grateful to get some feedback about the new proposed architecture. I recommend you have a look at the xdoclet2/core part: http://cvs.xdoclet.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/xdoclet/xdoclet2/core / The javadocs aren't too bad. You should be able to grasp the idea (even though English is your and my 2nd language). More info is here: http://www.mail-archive.com/xdoclet-devel%40lists.sourceforge.net/msg10208.h tml (this is really where comments are needed) Aslak ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.NET email is sponsored by: SourceForge Enterprise Edition + IBM + LinuxWorld = Something 2 See! http://www.vasoftware.com _______________________________________________ xdoclet-user mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/xdoclet-user
