[Mulgara-general] javadoc generation error

Life is hard, and then you die ronald at innovation.ch
Wed Mar 18 01:40:04 UTC 2009


On Mon, Mar 16, 2009 at 08:40:11AM -0700, Tommy Ingulfsen wrote:
> I don't know if you noticed the stack trace in the original post, but the 
> problem was that many of the standard html pages that usually reside in 
> the api directory were not built:
> 
> $ ls api
> constant-values.html  org  overview-frame.html  package-list  resources 
> serialized-form.html
> 
> This was using JDK 1.5.06. When switching to JDK 1.6.07, it works:
> 
> $ ls api
> allclasses-frame.html    constant-values.html  help-doc.html   index.html 
> overview-frame.html    overview-tree.html  resources 
> stylesheet.css
> allclasses-noframe.html  deprecated-list.html  index-all.html  org 
> overview-summary.html  package-list        serialized-form.html
> 
> When I googled the exception I got, I realised that my problem is an old 
> one:
> 
> http://mulgara.org/pipermail/mulgara-general/2007-June/000123.html
> 
> Sorry - I should have found the online version of the mailing list.

The reason for the abort is a missing error-message-key for a javadoc
warning; if we clean up the warnings, then this issue should not occur
and all docs should get generated.

> The README says that Java 1.5 is preferred and that 1.6 isn't supported. 
> Is it time to change that, do you think?

I would recommend changing that to say 1.6 is preferred, and both 1.5
and 1.6 are supported. The reason for saying 1.6 is preferred is
because of the performance and stability improvements, and also the
much improved monitoring capabilities (see for example the really nice
jvisualvm in 1.6.0-07 and later).


  Cheers,

  Ronald


> On Mon, 16 Mar 2009, Paul Gearon wrote:
> 
> >On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:48 PM, Tommy Ingulfsen <tommying at isi.edu> wrote:
> >>When running
> >>
> >>./build.sh javadoc
> >>
> >>I get an exception:
> >
> ><snip/>
> >
> >>  [javadoc] 243 warnings
> >>
> >>BUILD SUCCESSFUL
> >>
> >>Although it says that the build was successful, the resulting docs are in
> >>fact incomplete. Has anyone else had this issue? This is on 2.0.9, by the
> >>way.
> >
> >They're all warnings, rather than exceptions, which is why it says
> >"Successful". I notice that most of the problems are typos (one of
> >which has been copied and pasted a few times).
> >
> >As for the incomplete nature of the javadocs, sorry about that. I'll
> >check it out. Can you say what's missing?
> >
> >Paul



More information about the Mulgara-general mailing list