Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

Can you also add the iostreams docs? Basically, the five listed on the top of https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/javadoc.html should still be published, and when we get to 3.0, that will also need to include the plugins module. It would be nice if we could publish javadoc jars for everything,

Release plans for log4j-api-kotlin

After having migrated the build to use the new system Volkan put together for the main repo, I’ve managed to get the build there working in a similar streamlined fashion. Thus, it’ll be a lot easier to cut some releases there, and wow do we have a backlog of them to get through! So here’s what I

Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

Hi Matt, On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 17:58, Matt Sicker wrote: > > ... I’m not sure if IDEs and such can figure out the javadocs from the source > jar itself. I have disabled javadoc downloads in my Eclipse ages ago and it still shows me javadocs. Whenever sources are available, I don't believe that

Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

I was going to say the same thing. I'm wondering if there is ever a situation where someone can download the javadoc jars but not source jars. On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 9:58 AM Piotr P. Karwasz wrote: > Hi Matt, > > On Tue, 14 Feb 2023 at 17:58, Matt Sicker wrote: > > > > ... I’m not sure if IDEs

Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

Yes, shareware. That is, Javadoc JARs allow you to share your documentation without sharing your sources. AFAIK, almost all modern IDEs (Eclipse, NetBeans, IDEA) prioritize displaying documentation from source JARs, if available. Since ASF makes it obligatory to share sources, I see no purpose for

Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

Yes, that is true, but a different situation than I thought we were addressing. I meant my question to be "if both javadoc and source jars are available, would anyone somehow be able to get javadoc jars but not source jars?" On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 11:01 AM Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > Yes, shareware

Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

Matt, I am not inclined to publish Javadoc HTMLs for `log4j-iostreams` and `log4j-taglib` for the following reasons: - AFAIC, neither has any valuable information in their Javadoc. - Both need a decent developer-friendly short manual page, not a Javadoc HTML that needs to be deciphered by

Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

I suppose I should update that to use a package-info or similar, though as soon as you enter the docs, it has a bold link to “See IoBuilder”. That links to https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/log4j-iostreams/apidocs/org/apache/logging/log4j/io/IoBuilder.html where the main docs are for this (tr

Re: Release plans for log4j-api-kotlin

*[I would steal the releasing infra from `log4j-tools` for the best speed pill.]* Matt, I think matching major and minor versions of `log4j-api-kotlin` with Kotlin is a recipe for disaster. Imagine we shipped 1.7.0 and 1.8

Re: Release plans for log4j-api-kotlin

There are quite a few jars out there that use "-jre8" type of postfixes strings in artifact IDs, so we should do the same IMO. But... The first question to ask is whether or not we should go through the pain of even supporting different Kotlin platforms. I wouldn't bother if it were me, but I'm n

Re: Release plans for log4j-api-kotlin

Well, the version numbers don’t have to actually match; that’s more of an amusing coincidence at the moment. But anyways, this basically needs a baseline version of Kotlin; there haven’t been any backward-incompatible changes that would require supporting multiple versions like in Scala. > On F

Re: Release plans for log4j-api-kotlin

But then what is the resolution? Keep on sticking to Kotlin 1.3 for now? On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:23 PM Matt Sicker wrote: > Well, the version numbers don’t have to actually match; that’s more of an > amusing coincidence at the moment. But anyways, this basically needs a > baseline version of

Re: Release plans for log4j-api-kotlin

I’d like to make the 1.3.0 and 1.4.0 releases as described. Anything after that is up for debate still. > On Feb 14, 2023, at 3:36 PM, Volkan Yazıcı wrote: > > But then what is the resolution? > Keep on sticking to Kotlin 1.3 for now? > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 10:23 PM Matt Sicker wrote: >

Re: Javadoc HTML, JARs, and JXR

When Volkan and I discussed this the conclusion we mostly came to was that javadoc jars didn’t seem to be all that useful when source jars are available. When it comes to the web site the only Javadoc that is useful is for packages and classes you are going to write code against. This eliminates

JDK 20 Release Candidate and Deprecation

Welcome to the latest OpenJDK Quality Outreach update! The first Release Candidates of JDK 20 have been released [1] as per the schedule [2]. At this stage, only P1 issues will be evaluated. And with the JDK 20 General Availability sets for March 21st, it is now time to fully focus on JDK 21.