Java class documentation

Could we for now remove the formal class documentation from the DocBook
source, while keeping the narrative parts, and instead point people to the
JavaDoc? Could we make prebuild class documentation in HTML available to
users, maybe where the jars are downloaded?

Works for me. Not sure if we have rules for building javadoc in our
makefiles, but I'm sure it would be easy to add if necessary. Peter M,
what do you think?

- Thomas

Thomas Lockhart writes:

Could we for now remove the formal class documentation from the DocBook
source, while keeping the narrative parts, and instead point people to the
JavaDoc? Could we make prebuild class documentation in HTML available to
users, maybe where the jars are downloaded?

Works for me. Not sure if we have rules for building javadoc in our
makefiles, but I'm sure it would be easy to add if necessary. Peter M,
what do you think?

Actually, writing a simplistic javadoc to docbook converter ("doclet")
turned out to be rather easy. I can create <refentry> pages for the
relevant classes and put them where the current text is.

The result is a bit ugly, actually, because javadoc does not have the rich
structure that docbook has, while none of docbook's structure actually
matches the javadoc format, so it would still be of interest to have the
full javadoc/html set available.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/

At 22:07 22/02/01 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

I've started to finish up the not-marked-up-yet parts of the JDBC
documentation, but most of this seems to have once been generated by
javadoc, and I feel like it is probably a wasted effort to try to manually
convert this to DocBook.

Actually I was waiting until 7.1 was out before rewriting the jdbc docs
from scratch (so much has changed since those were written).

AFAIK, there is currently no Javadoc to DocBook converter available. This
might be a worthwhile project, though.

Could we for now remove the formal class documentation from the DocBook
source, while keeping the narrative parts, and instead point people to the
JavaDoc? Could we make prebuild class documentation in HTML available to
users, maybe where the jars are downloaded?

Already a work in progress. You might be duplicating work already being
done for the jdbc site.

Peter

At 16:00 23/02/01 +0000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:

Could we for now remove the formal class documentation from the DocBook
source, while keeping the narrative parts, and instead point people to the
JavaDoc? Could we make prebuild class documentation in HTML available to
users, maybe where the jars are downloaded?

Works for me. Not sure if we have rules for building javadoc in our
makefiles, but I'm sure it would be easy to add if necessary. Peter M,
what do you think?

As I just replied to PeterE, I was waiting for 7.1 to be out before
rewriting the docs from scratch. I was waiting because of time restraints
and I didn't want to mess up the exiting docs, especially as I knew you
needed time before release with the docs static.

What I'm working on for the jdbc site is a set of API docs explaining the
PostgreSQL specific extensions, and a set of tutorials. The tutorials range
from the basic stuff (replacing the examples in the source), to writing
Servlets with PostgreSQL, EJB's, Corba etc.

Now a Javadoc->DocBook converter should be easy. In fact you can get
javadoc to do it for you using the Doclet API. Should be real easy to do.

Peter

Peter Mount writes:

Actually I was waiting until 7.1 was out before rewriting the jdbc docs

from scratch (so much has changed since those were written).

I can see that. However, 7.1 users should still get the benefit of
reasonably up to date documentation. I've at least changed all package
references to 'org.postgresql' and said something about ant, plus some
spell checking and polishing. Perhaps you can scan it to make sure it's
not complete garbage.

http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/postgres/jdbc.html

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net http://yi.org/peter-e/

At 00:28 25/02/01 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:

Peter Mount writes:

Actually I was waiting until 7.1 was out before rewriting the jdbc docs

from scratch (so much has changed since those were written).

I can see that. However, 7.1 users should still get the benefit of
reasonably up to date documentation. I've at least changed all package
references to 'org.postgresql' and said something about ant, plus some
spell checking and polishing. Perhaps you can scan it to make sure it's
not complete garbage.

http://www.postgresql.org/devel-corner/docs/postgres/jdbc.html

Ok, I will do.

Sorry for the late reply, it's been a hectic week and its the first time
I've had to even use my home machine since Sunday :-(

Peter