Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Java class documentation

From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
To: <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org>
Cc: <pgsql-docs(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Java class documentation
Date: 2001-02-23 19:32:34
Message-ID: Pine.LNX.4.30.0102231823270.1049-100000@peter.localdomain (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-docspgsql-jdbc
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(at)gmx(dot)net

In response to

pgsql-docs by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2001-02-23 20:17:30
Subject: Re: Documentation errors in Programmers guide, chapter 4.
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2001-02-23 19:12:21
Subject: Re: Could not access the following URL

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Bob KlineDate: 2001-02-23 20:49:32
Subject: Re: unable to find postgresql.jar
Previous:From: Skidmore, WaltDate: 2001-02-23 17:00:14
Subject: f is not a valid bitstring

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group