> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > On Wed, 9 Mar 2005, Dominique Devienne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> From: Stefan Bodewig [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >> The problem with IntrospectionHelper vs. source code based is that > >> don't know which attributes are required/mutally exclusive whatever > >> via IH. > > > > Yes and no Stefan. IH is used to just a listing if you will of > > what needs to be documented, and this listing is later used to > > fetch all the Javadoc comments for these attributes/elements. > > Is this really easier than generated everything from the sources > without IH? I have no idea, since I never tried doing this myself > (and I have written <antstructure> which uses the IH approach itself).
I think so. Like I said to Erik, I don't want to recode the logic already in IH to exclude some attributes, or consider only certain methods, or to only use Javadocs elements with a given custom task. (because you need humans to remember to add the custom tag then). The way I see it, it's either you recode IH logic in your source parser to know what to keep and what to throw away, or you have a manual process, thus prone to error. IH now exposes the actual method name used to implement an attribute or an element or even an extension point, so it's just the matter of translating the java.lang.reflect.Method signature to filter the Javadocs MethodDocs to keep. --DD --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
