mail at ulerch.net
Do Mär 13 16:34:26 CET 2008
for me it's important that it is
(1) javadoc compatible (no compromise there!)
(2) integrated in eclipse
(3) easy to set up
Doxygen seems to match all of these points, too.
So, why don't we use both of them, javadoc and doxygen? It's not that
much work, at least with javadoc. And if we see, after some time, that
there is only one documentation used, we could easily skip the other
In my opinion it is important that there's a documentation in the code
at all, and that it is done in a widely used and accepted
standard/style. Anything that helps as a motivation to do this is
Am Mittwoch, den 12.03.2008, 23:15 +0100 schrieb Enrico Schnepel:
> i would prefer doxygen for java documentation instead of javadoc.
> doxygen has a lot more options to tweak the output and its nicer and more
> useable (including uml / references / referenced by graphs).
> Am Mittwoch 12 März 2008 22:33:42 schrieb Urs Lerch:
> > Hi,
> > wouldn't it be useful to publish javadoc somewhere on the DeepaMehta
> > homepage? That could be a good help, not only for newbies! And it would
> > be even better of course, if there was a little bit more documentation
> > in the source files ;)
> > You'll find a test-snapshot: http://www.ulerch.net/deepamehta/javadoc/.
> > Kind regards,
> > Urs
> > _______________________________________________
> > deepamehta-devel mailing list
> > deepamehta-devel at lists.berlios.de
> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/deepamehta-devel
> deepamehta-devel mailing list
> deepamehta-devel at lists.berlios.de
Mehr Informationen über die Mailingliste devel