You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@activemq.apache.org by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com> on 2015/06/02 15:30:21 UTC
[DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
We have our package-info.java with a license header basically. Instead
of showing a nice statement about what the package is meant for, this
is translating as "Licensed to Apache" on every package that has a
package-info.java
http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/javadocs/javadoc-1.0.0/index.html
The only exception was Filters that used the html old version for the package.
Can we stop adding License Headers on package-info.java and instead
have a better documentation about what the package is meant for? that
way the javadoc would translate better.
Or does anyone know a syntax that would allow us to have a license
header and still a meaninful doc about the package?
Thanks
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Yeah.. that works..
even if I still had it regularly it would still work. Compiled with
the following (at the end of this message) and it worked.
I think we should either kill the package-info.java packages, or fill
them properly with information. I will raise a JIRA so we won't forget
this:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-129
/**
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/
/**
* This is just a test
*/
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 9:51 AM, Jeff Mesnil <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why don't you simply use simple comment (/* */) instead of Javadoc
> comments (/** */) for the license headers?
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We have our package-info.java with a license header basically. Instead
>> of showing a nice statement about what the package is meant for, this
>> is translating as "Licensed to Apache" on every package that has a
>> package-info.java
>>
>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/javadocs/javadoc-1.0.0/index.html
>>
>>
>> The only exception was Filters that used the html old version for the package.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we stop adding License Headers on package-info.java and instead
>> have a better documentation about what the package is meant for? that
>> way the javadoc would translate better.
>>
>>
>> Or does anyone know a syntax that would allow us to have a license
>> header and still a meaninful doc about the package?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Mesnil
> jmesnil@gmail.com
> http://jmesnil.net/weblog/
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
> With regards to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-129 , it would be nice to not kill the package-info.java but instead pack it with useful information.
Sure, but I don't want document the obvious.
If a package is called util, I would rather kill the doc instead of
saying "This contains utility classes"... duh!!!
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
Nice one :)
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 10:28 PM, Thiago Kronig <th...@gmail.com> wrote:
> https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/11
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Ganesh Murthy <gm...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> > I noticed that many java files in ActiveMQ have the license header as a
>> javadoc but the HTML page does not show the license header. Example -
>>
>> I agree, but even though the issue is only on package-info... I think
>> these should be updated to /* on all the license headers. (any
>> volunteers to take the task? : )
>>
>> We copied these license headers verbatin from ActiveMQ-5, but IMO it
>> would make more sense to be regular comments instead of javadocs.
>>
>>
>> Any objections?
>>
>> Anyone volunteering to send a PR? :)
>>
--
Clebert Suconic
http://community.jboss.org/people/clebert.suconic@jboss.com
http://clebertsuconic.blogspot.com
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Thiago Kronig <th...@gmail.com>.
https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/11
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 5:28 PM Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Ganesh Murthy <gm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > I noticed that many java files in ActiveMQ have the license header as a
> javadoc but the HTML page does not show the license header. Example -
>
> I agree, but even though the issue is only on package-info... I think
> these should be updated to /* on all the license headers. (any
> volunteers to take the task? : )
>
> We copied these license headers verbatin from ActiveMQ-5, but IMO it
> would make more sense to be regular comments instead of javadocs.
>
>
> Any objections?
>
> Anyone volunteering to send a PR? :)
>
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Clebert Suconic <cl...@gmail.com>.
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Ganesh Murthy <gm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> I noticed that many java files in ActiveMQ have the license header as a javadoc but the HTML page does not show the license header. Example -
I agree, but even though the issue is only on package-info... I think
these should be updated to /* on all the license headers. (any
volunteers to take the task? : )
We copied these license headers verbatin from ActiveMQ-5, but IMO it
would make more sense to be regular comments instead of javadocs.
Any objections?
Anyone volunteering to send a PR? :)
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Ganesh Murthy <gm...@redhat.com>.
I noticed that many java files in ActiveMQ have the license header as a javadoc but the HTML page does not show the license header. Example -
/**
* Licensed to the Apache Software Foundation (ASF) under one or more
* contributor license agreements. See the NOTICE file distributed with
* this work for additional information regarding copyright ownership.
* The ASF licenses this file to You under the Apache License, Version 2.0
* (the "License"); you may not use this file except in compliance with
* the License. You may obtain a copy of the License at
*
* http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
*
* Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
* distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
* WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
* See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
* limitations under the License.
*/
package org.apache.activemq.broker.region.cursors;
import java.util.ArrayList;
import java.util.Iterator;
import java.util.LinkedList;
import java.util.List;
import org.apache.activemq.broker.ConnectionContext;
import org.apache.activemq.broker.region.Destination;
import org.apache.activemq.broker.region.MessageReference;
import org.apache.activemq.broker.region.QueueMessageReference;
/**
* hold pending messages in a linked list (messages awaiting disptach to a
* consumer) cursor
*
*
*/
public class VMPendingMessageCursor extends AbstractPendingMessageCursor {.......
But this HTML does not show the license - http://activemq.apache.org/maven/5.11.0/apidocs/org/apache/activemq/broker/region/cursors/VMPendingMessageCursor.html
With regards to https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/ARTEMIS-129 , it would be nice to not kill the package-info.java but instead pack it with useful information.
Thanks,
Ganesh.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robbie Gemmell" <ro...@gmail.com>
To: dev@activemq.apache.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2015 10:35:16 AM
Subject: Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Yes thats what I do on all .java files, I'm not actually sure why we
would put the header as a Javadoc. We dont particularly want it to
show up visibly on the resulting documentation (and it isnt strictly
required on generated files, only their source), and there isnt
anything in there which we would need/want the javadoc parser to look
at, so using comments seem more appropriate.
Robbie
On 2 June 2015 at 14:51, Jeff Mesnil <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why don't you simply use simple comment (/* */) instead of Javadoc
> comments (/** */) for the license headers?
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We have our package-info.java with a license header basically. Instead
>> of showing a nice statement about what the package is meant for, this
>> is translating as "Licensed to Apache" on every package that has a
>> package-info.java
>>
>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/javadocs/javadoc-1.0.0/index.html
>>
>>
>> The only exception was Filters that used the html old version for the package.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we stop adding License Headers on package-info.java and instead
>> have a better documentation about what the package is meant for? that
>> way the javadoc would translate better.
>>
>>
>> Or does anyone know a syntax that would allow us to have a license
>> header and still a meaninful doc about the package?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Mesnil
> jmesnil@gmail.com
> http://jmesnil.net/weblog/
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Robbie Gemmell <ro...@gmail.com>.
Yes thats what I do on all .java files, I'm not actually sure why we
would put the header as a Javadoc. We dont particularly want it to
show up visibly on the resulting documentation (and it isnt strictly
required on generated files, only their source), and there isnt
anything in there which we would need/want the javadoc parser to look
at, so using comments seem more appropriate.
Robbie
On 2 June 2015 at 14:51, Jeff Mesnil <jm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> why don't you simply use simple comment (/* */) instead of Javadoc
> comments (/** */) for the license headers?
>
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Clebert Suconic
> <cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> We have our package-info.java with a license header basically. Instead
>> of showing a nice statement about what the package is meant for, this
>> is translating as "Licensed to Apache" on every package that has a
>> package-info.java
>>
>> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/javadocs/javadoc-1.0.0/index.html
>>
>>
>> The only exception was Filters that used the html old version for the package.
>>
>>
>>
>> Can we stop adding License Headers on package-info.java and instead
>> have a better documentation about what the package is meant for? that
>> way the javadoc would translate better.
>>
>>
>> Or does anyone know a syntax that would allow us to have a license
>> header and still a meaninful doc about the package?
>>
>>
>> Thanks
>
>
>
> --
> Jeff Mesnil
> jmesnil@gmail.com
> http://jmesnil.net/weblog/
Re: [DISCUSSION] License Headers on Artemis/package-info.java
Posted by Jeff Mesnil <jm...@gmail.com>.
why don't you simply use simple comment (/* */) instead of Javadoc
comments (/** */) for the license headers?
On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Clebert Suconic
<cl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have our package-info.java with a license header basically. Instead
> of showing a nice statement about what the package is meant for, this
> is translating as "Licensed to Apache" on every package that has a
> package-info.java
>
> http://activemq.apache.org/artemis/docs/javadocs/javadoc-1.0.0/index.html
>
>
> The only exception was Filters that used the html old version for the package.
>
>
>
> Can we stop adding License Headers on package-info.java and instead
> have a better documentation about what the package is meant for? that
> way the javadoc would translate better.
>
>
> Or does anyone know a syntax that would allow us to have a license
> header and still a meaninful doc about the package?
>
>
> Thanks
--
Jeff Mesnil
jmesnil@gmail.com
http://jmesnil.net/weblog/