remove modules which don't contain APIs from aggregated Javadoc #9431
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
… Javadoc These modules don't contain APIs which are called by users or implemented by integrators. Including them in the generated Javadoc results in confusion for users and makes the Javadoc much more difficult to navigate and consume. In particular, we definitely don't want packages like these included in the main Javadoc distribution for Hibernate ORM: org.hibernate.testing.orm.domain.gambit org.hibernate.testing.orm.domain.helpdesk "Good documentation" isn't about having the maximum possible quantity of documentation; it's about having documentation where people actually have a hope of finding what they're looking for. In general, generated Javadoc is entirely useless except when we've actually taken time to actually write meaningful and readable prose. If all I need is a list of classes and their methods, my IDE is quite capable of presenting that information to me. Worse, documentation for things that aren't API appears to invite users to interact with these things, which is precisely what we don't want them to do! I'm leaving Envers alone, but I'm honestly not even sure if the Envers packages belong here, since it doesn't look like anyone has actually spent much time writing Javadoc for these packages. If Envers Javadoc is useful, it would be better to put it in a separate Javadoc build, IMO.
gavinking
changed the title
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
These modules don't contain APIs which are called by users or implemented by integrators. Including them in the generated Javadoc results in confusion for users and makes the Javadoc much more difficult to navigate and consume.
In particular, we definitely don't want packages like these included in the main Javadoc distribution for Hibernate ORM:
org.hibernate.testing.orm.domain.gambitorg.hibernate.testing.orm.domain.helpdesk"Good documentation" isn't about having the maximum possible quantity of documentation; it's about having documentation where people actually have a hope of finding what they're looking for. In general, generated Javadoc is entirely useless except when we've actually taken time to actually write meaningful and readable prose. If all I need is a list of classes and their methods, my IDE is quite capable of presenting that information to me.
Worse, documentation for things that aren't API appears to invite users to interact with these things, which is precisely what we don't want them to do!
I'm leaving Envers alone, but I'm honestly not even sure if the Envers packages belong here, since it doesn't look like anyone has actually spent much time writing Javadoc for these packages. If Envers Javadoc is useful, it would be
better to put it in a separate Javadoc build, IMO.
By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license
and can be relicensed under the terms of the LGPL v2.1 license in the future at the maintainers' discretion.
For more information on licensing, please check here.