You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@myfaces.apache.org by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> on 2005/07/21 12:47:28 UTC
[proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Hi All,
Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding tests to
the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
Thoughts?
TTFN,
-bd-
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
always easier to ask forgiveness than permission, I love it! :-)
TTFN,
-bd-
On Jul 21, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Martin Marinschek wrote:
> I would say that yes, it is OK.
>
> we could of course just do it and see what happens ;)
>
> regards,
>
> Martin
>
> On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> From reading the license we will need a lawyer :-)
>
> Looks like paragraphs 2-5 are the important ones
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bd4hf
>
> I think paragraph 2 gives us the license to copy the javadoc. Esp
> part i & iii, can we fully implement the spec or pass the user guide
> part of the TCK without the javadocs? Since pg 38 of the spec
> (version 1.2_PR) explicitly says the javadoc are part of the spec
> (older versions f the spec say the same thing) we probably have the
> license to copy them.
>
> Just my thoughts from the bit of research I've been able to do this
> am.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:
>
> > I'm +1 for that as long as Craig and Sun are +1
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/21/05, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, any lawyer listening that *really* understands the
> >> Sun.CfcsSpec.license.11.14.2003?
> >> Is it allowed to copy and (re)use text from the spec. Would that be
> >> kind of "reproduction", which is only allowed for private use
> >> according to the spec license?
> >> I don't know.
> >>
> >> -Manfred
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec
> classes? I
> >>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> >>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be
> able to
> >>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding
> >>> tests to
> >>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these
> classes.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> TTFN,
> >>>
> >>> -bd-
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
I would say that yes, it is OK.
we could of course just do it and see what happens ;)
regards,
Martin
On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> From reading the license we will need a lawyer :-)
>
> Looks like paragraphs 2-5 are the important ones
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bd4hf
>
> I think paragraph 2 gives us the license to copy the javadoc. Esp
> part i & iii, can we fully implement the spec or pass the user guide
> part of the TCK without the javadocs? Since pg 38 of the spec
> (version 1.2_PR) explicitly says the javadoc are part of the spec
> (older versions f the spec say the same thing) we probably have the
> license to copy them.
>
> Just my thoughts from the bit of research I've been able to do this am.
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
>
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:
>
> > I'm +1 for that as long as Craig and Sun are +1
> >
> > sean
> >
> > On 7/21/05, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hello, any lawyer listening that *really* understands the
> >> Sun.CfcsSpec.license.11.14.2003?
> >> Is it allowed to copy and (re)use text from the spec. Would that be
> >> kind of "reproduction", which is only allowed for private use
> >> according to the spec license?
> >> I don't know.
> >>
> >> -Manfred
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> >>
> >>> Hi All,
> >>>
> >>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> >>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> >>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> >>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding
> >>> tests to
> >>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
> >>>
> >>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> TTFN,
> >>>
> >>> -bd-
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
From reading the license we will need a lawyer :-)
Looks like paragraphs 2-5 are the important ones
http://tinyurl.com/bd4hf
I think paragraph 2 gives us the license to copy the javadoc. Esp
part i & iii, can we fully implement the spec or pass the user guide
part of the TCK without the javadocs? Since pg 38 of the spec
(version 1.2_PR) explicitly says the javadoc are part of the spec
(older versions f the spec say the same thing) we probably have the
license to copy them.
Just my thoughts from the bit of research I've been able to do this am.
TTFN,
-bd-
On Jul 21, 2005, at 6:01 AM, Sean Schofield wrote:
> I'm +1 for that as long as Craig and Sun are +1
>
> sean
>
> On 7/21/05, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello, any lawyer listening that *really* understands the
>> Sun.CfcsSpec.license.11.14.2003?
>> Is it allowed to copy and (re)use text from the spec. Would that be
>> kind of "reproduction", which is only allowed for private use
>> according to the spec license?
>> I don't know.
>>
>> -Manfred
>>
>>
>>
>> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
>>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
>>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
>>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding
>>> tests to
>>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> TTFN,
>>>
>>> -bd-
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Sean Schofield <se...@gmail.com>.
I'm +1 for that as long as Craig and Sun are +1
sean
On 7/21/05, Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello, any lawyer listening that *really* understands the
> Sun.CfcsSpec.license.11.14.2003?
> Is it allowed to copy and (re)use text from the spec. Would that be
> kind of "reproduction", which is only allowed for private use
> according to the spec license?
> I don't know.
>
> -Manfred
>
>
>
> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> > remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> > time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> > copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding tests to
> > the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Manfred Geiler <ma...@gmail.com>.
Hello, any lawyer listening that *really* understands the
Sun.CfcsSpec.license.11.14.2003?
Is it allowed to copy and (re)use text from the spec. Would that be
kind of "reproduction", which is only allowed for private use
according to the spec license?
I don't know.
-Manfred
2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding tests to
> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Martin Marinschek <ma...@gmail.com>.
Yes,
we don't want to copy anything of the code, of course.
We have already implemented that ourselves, but it should really be effort
wasted if we re-javadoc everything as well ;)
We got told by Apache Buffs that this would not be possible - we would
someone who originally wrote the JavaDoc to provide a patch for Apache
MyFaces. Maybe you would be able to arrange something like that?
thank you very much for your efforts,
regards,
Martin
On 7/21/05, Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> > Thanks for looking into this for us Craig.
> >
> > Seems like a big waste of effort for us to reinvent that wheel.
> >
> > Besides if we document the methods incorrectly we probably won't be
> > spec compliant :-)
>
> Hmm ... I don't remember any TCK tests that checked the English
> language stuff ... just the Java language stuff :-).
>
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
>
> Craig
>
>
> >
> > On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> >
> > > So, the question is about copying the JavaDocs from the RI's
> > > jsf-api.jar file, but not the code? I'm gonna have to ask what the
> > > precise rules are and get back to you on that.
> > >
> > > Craig
> > >
> > >
> > > On 7/21/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Sorry, that was the answer to the other proposal ;-)
> > >>
> > >> For the JavaDoc stuff, le'ts hear what Craig can tell us...
> > >>
> > >> Bruno
> > >>
> > >> 2005/7/21, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>:
> > >>
> > >>> +1
> > >>>
> > >>> For me it is better to introduce a new dependency if we can create
> > >>> better tests (and faster) than using nasty workarounds...
> > >>>
> > >>> Bruno
> > >>>
> > >>> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Hi All,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> > >>>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> > >>>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> > >>>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding
> > >>>> tests to
> > >>>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these
> > >>>> classes.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Thoughts?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> TTFN,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -bd-
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> >
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
On 7/21/05, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com> wrote:
> Thanks for looking into this for us Craig.
>
> Seems like a big waste of effort for us to reinvent that wheel.
>
> Besides if we document the methods incorrectly we probably won't be
> spec compliant :-)
Hmm ... I don't remember any TCK tests that checked the English
language stuff ... just the Java language stuff :-).
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
Craig
>
> On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
>
> > So, the question is about copying the JavaDocs from the RI's
> > jsf-api.jar file, but not the code? I'm gonna have to ask what the
> > precise rules are and get back to you on that.
> >
> > Craig
> >
> >
> > On 7/21/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Sorry, that was the answer to the other proposal ;-)
> >>
> >> For the JavaDoc stuff, le'ts hear what Craig can tell us...
> >>
> >> Bruno
> >>
> >> 2005/7/21, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>:
> >>
> >>> +1
> >>>
> >>> For me it is better to introduce a new dependency if we can create
> >>> better tests (and faster) than using nasty workarounds...
> >>>
> >>> Bruno
> >>>
> >>> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> >>>
> >>>> Hi All,
> >>>>
> >>>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> >>>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> >>>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> >>>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding
> >>>> tests to
> >>>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these
> >>>> classes.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> TTFN,
> >>>>
> >>>> -bd-
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
>
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>.
Thanks for looking into this for us Craig.
Seems like a big waste of effort for us to reinvent that wheel.
Besides if we document the methods incorrectly we probably won't be
spec compliant :-)
TTFN,
-bd-
On Jul 21, 2005, at 10:43 AM, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> So, the question is about copying the JavaDocs from the RI's
> jsf-api.jar file, but not the code? I'm gonna have to ask what the
> precise rules are and get back to you on that.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On 7/21/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Sorry, that was the answer to the other proposal ;-)
>>
>> For the JavaDoc stuff, le'ts hear what Craig can tell us...
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>> 2005/7/21, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> +1
>>>
>>> For me it is better to introduce a new dependency if we can create
>>> better tests (and faster) than using nasty workarounds...
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
>>>
>>>> Hi All,
>>>>
>>>> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
>>>> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
>>>> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
>>>> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding
>>>> tests to
>>>> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these
>>>> classes.
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>>> TTFN,
>>>>
>>>> -bd-
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
So, the question is about copying the JavaDocs from the RI's
jsf-api.jar file, but not the code? I'm gonna have to ask what the
precise rules are and get back to you on that.
Craig
On 7/21/05, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry, that was the answer to the other proposal ;-)
>
> For the JavaDoc stuff, le'ts hear what Craig can tell us...
>
> Bruno
>
> 2005/7/21, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>:
> > +1
> >
> > For me it is better to introduce a new dependency if we can create
> > better tests (and faster) than using nasty workarounds...
> >
> > Bruno
> >
> > 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> > > Hi All,
> > >
> > > Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> > > remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> > > time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> > > copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding tests to
> > > the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> > > TTFN,
> > >
> > > -bd-
> > >
> >
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
Sorry, that was the answer to the other proposal ;-)
For the JavaDoc stuff, le'ts hear what Craig can tell us...
Bruno
2005/7/21, Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>:
> +1
>
> For me it is better to introduce a new dependency if we can create
> better tests (and faster) than using nasty workarounds...
>
> Bruno
>
> 2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> > Hi All,
> >
> > Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> > remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> > time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> > copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding tests to
> > the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > TTFN,
> >
> > -bd-
> >
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Bruno Aranda <br...@gmail.com>.
+1
For me it is better to introduce a new dependency if we can create
better tests (and faster) than using nasty workarounds...
Bruno
2005/7/21, Bill Dudney <bd...@mac.com>:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long
> time ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to
> copy that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding tests to
> the javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-
>
Re: [proposal] JavaDoc from the spec?
Posted by Mathias Broekelmann <mb...@PSI.DE>.
+1
That would simplify implementing the spec and increase the usability of
javadocs of myfaces.
Bill Dudney schrieb:
> Hi All,
>
> Is there an issue with copying the javadoc from the spec classes? I
> remember someone said we could not use the jsf-api.jar file a long time
> ago but the java doc is part of the spec. We should be able to copy
> that correct? So I'd like to propose that as I'm adding tests to the
> javax.faces.* packages that I also add javadoc to these classes.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> TTFN,
>
> -bd-