Re: [aspectwerkz-dev] aw doc

Quote [Alexandre Vasseur]:
> 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...

Wouldn't be an idea to go for both solutions? However Alex proposal can be included in 
http://aspectwerkz-aware.dev.java.net (I didn't know about this, is it advertise anywhere?)

./the_mindstorm

> 
> 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
>> 
>>
>