Re: [aspectwerkz-dev] aw doc

thanks for this feedback !
Indeed, we need to check if it can be generic enough and done with
aspects at least to support javadoc of 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5/5. Well, I
admit, I am more interested in doing it in a fancy way with AW rather
than reaching the actual goal...

Alex


On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 12:25:26 -0700, Mik Kersten <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alex,
> 
> I agree that this is a feasible alternative.  With AspectJ 1.0 we had just
> that working for ajdoc--extended/patched Javadoc classes caused the AspectJ
> declarations to documented, and the links to be added while those were being
> processed.  And we had a version of it working with AspectJ as the patching
> mechanism, but didn't want our only example of AspectJ use at the time to be
> patching.
> 
> The main problem we encountered is that this approach was dependent on JDK
> versions.  So we forced people to use the 1.2 tools.jar when working on 1.3
> and 1.4 because we didn't have the resources to update ajdoc or support
> multiple JDKs.  So oddly enough it has turned out that the HTML sources have
> been a more stable 'platform' than the Javadoc classes.
> 
> I recommend keeping in mind that this is a simple problem (i.e. only
> involves new declaration entries and links) and doing the thing that will be
> easiest to maintain.  But it's possible for the "patch" approach to be
> cleaner overall, and it would be neat if you used AW to do it.
> 
> Mik
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexandre Vasseur [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2004 10:25 AM
> > To: [email protected]
> > Subject: [aspectwerkz-dev] aw doc
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > So to start discussing again about the "generate javadoc with advised
> > by information etc".
> >
> > I am not sure ajdoc is the way to go. It makes lot of assumption about
> > how the javadoc looks like, and acts in two phases as it was described
> > here in a previous post.
> > Moreover, you cannot use it with custom doclet etc.
> >
> > I am wondering, based on what I have found about "jdoc2", how
> > difficult it would be instead to try to "patch" (see [1] below) the
> > Sun javadoc classes, so that when the javadoc for a method gets
> > generated, we simply query AW to see if we have an advice here (see
> > [2] below).
> > Ok, it sounds like a crazy idea ? Mh, more than patching generated html ?
> >
> > So
> > [1] could be achieved may be by applying some aspect to ajdoc itself
> > (thus awdoc calls the Main class of javadoc with some awdoc aspects turned
> > on)
> > It needs some more digging
> > [1] can be achieved by shipping a modified version of Sun javadoc.
> > Since it is not allowed, we can ship a module that do the change for
> > you (just as the hook does for hotspot java 1.3). In the long run, we
> > can make use of Java 5 hotswap as well. But i think we should first to
> > have the job done using our own food aka AW aspects !
> >
> > [2] the question here is that if from a weaver perspective we can have
> > all the info we want, it can be somehow more complex to make it
> > available f.e. when you have call pointcuts, pointcut references,
> > withincode(..) filter and runtime checks residual parts (f.e. cflow).
> >
> > Side note: for Java 1.4 self defined aspect, we can hack ~5 doclet to
> > embed the aspect def in the javadoc - but that s too easy to discuss
> > it.
> >
> > Thoughts ?
> >
> > Alex
> 
>