james-server-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tetsuya Kitahata <tetsuya.kitah...@nifty.ne.jp>
Subject Re: about javadocs (was: Re: FW: What do we need to release 2.1?)
Date Mon, 19 Aug 2002 04:07:30 GMT

Hi, Andy and all.

On Sun, 18 Aug 2002 23:21:42 -0400
"Andrew C. Oliver" <acoliver@apache.org> wrote:

> To be honest Tetsuya, it makes me scared to use it.  Javadoc to me is so 
> basic and takes so little time, to actually argue against it...  To me 
> this is the same as an argument to write variables a1, a2, a3... Its 
> code quality.  This is an active argument for poor code quality and I 
> can't believe this is controversial!

I know your feelings, but it seems that it is the difference of 
"where and when to put our milestones" things.
For example, "our objectives at version 2.1 are not necessary 
complete javadocs, but at version 3.0, complete javadocs are
necessary" ... I think (for example) this is possible.

--

I agreed with Noel's opinion, "But javadocs for developers is not a 
reason to hold end users hostage", because this matter also applies
to the translation.
To catch up with frequently changed javadocs (to keep in sync) is
very difficult and almost impossible things.
The difference between this two Japanese Translation Groups(?)
http://www.terra-intl.com/jakarta/
http://www.ingrid.org/jajakarta/
is apparent. I (the former one) clearly declared " I will not
translate Javadocs because external documents are very important
for the PROMOTION of jakarta-projects but javadocs are different."
That's why I can speed it up to translate 9 jakarta-projects (including
JAMES) and the latter could not, it seems.

That's why I love the Noel's sentence.

Regards,

-- Tetsuya Kitahata <kitahata@bb.mbn.or.jp>



--
To unsubscribe, e-mail:   <mailto:james-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:james-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org>


Mime
View raw message