Re: Attention GCJ devel team

["James Williams" <james_williams at optusnet dot com dot au>]

Whether to generate the javadoc or not is an option that the user can set at
the time of generation.

The cool thing about generating the javadoc is that it updates whether or
not the method,class etc is deprecated.  This is why I'm having trouble with
the whole "javadoc is copyrighted" issue because deprecation is part of the
specification and part of the javadoc.

Either way I will be forwarding the finished source to you guys for eval and
if you find it useful then please feel free to use and contribute to it.

Thanks for the reply
James


----- Original Message -----
From: "Nic Ferrier" <nferrier@tapsellferrier.co.uk>
To: "Bryce McKinlay" <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
Cc: "James Williams" <james_williams@optusnet.com.au>; <java@gcc.gnu.org>;
<gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
Sent: Monday, April 22, 2002 4:39 PM
Subject: Re: Attention GCJ devel team


> Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz> writes:
>
> > James Williams wrote:
> >
> > >I am currently working on a tool that will generate class stubs
complete
> > >with javadoc from javadoc specifications.  In your FAQ a person
> > >mentioned that "Considering that new Java APIs come out every week,
it's
> > >going to be impossible to track everything."  I believe the tool I am
> > >developing may reduce this development challenge for you substantially.
> > >
> > >From my perspective the value of this would be that when a new
specification
> > >came out, the api converter could be run providing a clean framework
> > >complete with all the new and deprecated api's and then the intergrator
> > >could copy the existing code from the current libgcj implementation
into
> > >the new framework.
> > >
> >
> > This sounds like an interesting and useful tool. However, I don't know
> > whether or not we can, from a legal perspective, generate code
> > directly/automatically from Javadocs. I suspect we'd have to ask the FSF
> > legal people whether or not this is safe.
>
> We had the same issue with ClasspathX and I think the result was that
> it's not legal (sun have (c) on the javadoc produced text).
>
> But I don't have any copy of an FSF mail so you may as well ask again.
>
>
> However, such a tool would still be useful, just as a monitoring tool.
>
>
> Nic
>