disappointmenet

["Robert M. Zigweid" <ti...@internation.co.uk>]

I'm still quite new  to using Ant and I must say that on the whole I'm
very pleased at this point.  However I decided to try to use the
<javadoc> methods and ran into what I feel is a major disappointment
that should be improved upon.  There may be plans for this in future
releases, and if so, hooray, otherwise well maybe it should be
considered.

My problem is that Ant appears to call the javadoc as a command, rather
than utilizing the javadoc api.  Using the API should be able to allow
filesets, as are used by javac and possibly make the tag more
functional.  Are there any plans for this in the future?  Am I off my
rocker?

Robert M. Zigweid
Internation

Re: disappointmenet

[James Duncan Davidson <du...@x180.net>]

On 12/8/00 7:55 AM, "Robert M. Zigweid" <ti...@internation.co.uk> wrote:

> My problem is that Ant appears to call the javadoc as a command, rather
> than utilizing the javadoc api.  Using the API should be able to allow
> filesets, as are used by javac and possibly make the tag more
> functional.  Are there any plans for this in the future?  Am I off my
> rocker?

Keep in mind that the more sophisticated Javadoc didn't show up till 1.2 --
and currently Ant 1.x supports JDk 1.x. When moving to 1.2, there may be an
opportunity to better use the internal apis.. I haven't yet investigated
this, though I probably will be shortly.

-- 
James Duncan Davidson                                        duncan@x180.net
                                                                  !try; do()

Re: disappointmenet

[Peter Donald <do...@apache.org>]

At 03:55  8/12/00 +0000, you wrote:
>I'm still quite new  to using Ant and I must say that on the whole I'm
>very pleased at this point.  However I decided to try to use the
><javadoc> methods and ran into what I feel is a major disappointment
>that should be improved upon.  There may be plans for this in future
>releases, and if so, hooray, otherwise well maybe it should be
>considered.

Sure - if someone wants to write it ;)

>My problem is that Ant appears to call the javadoc as a command, rather
>than utilizing the javadoc api.  Using the API should be able to allow
>filesets, as are used by javac and possibly make the tag more
>functional.  Are there any plans for this in the future?  Am I off my
>rocker?

If you are talking about the doclet API then unfortunately it doesn't help.
The doclet API produces an end product. There was talk a while back of just
reimplementing a better javadoc - it would be relatively easy to do in
under 20 hours or so - but the problem would be one of acceptance and
branding. 

No doubt if one tool was created it couldn't be called javadoc and it would
be difficult - if not impossible to get wide spread adoptance. A few people
have emailed the javadoc team to see what the deal is but there is zero
response. Hell I even offered to reprogram it for them but I still get no
response - pfft. 

There was a solution that was offered a while back to make javadoc
incremental builds usable. There was XMLDoclet moved to Apache Alexandria
project a while back. Ideally you could modify this to product an .xdoc
file per .java file. Then you could diff the .java/.xdoc files and compare
timestamps and only rebuild those that are necessary to be rebuilt. No one
implemented this last time I checked thou so you pretty much have to sit on
your laurels while building javadocs ;(


Cheers,

Pete

*-----------------------------------------------------*
| "Faced with the choice between changing one's mind, |
| and proving that there is no need to do so - almost |
| everyone gets busy on the proof."                   |
|              - John Kenneth Galbraith               |
*-----------------------------------------------------*