[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ant-dev
Subject:    Re: Generating Ant javadoc with Java 9 fails
From:       Gintautas Grigelionis <g.grigelionis () gmail ! com>
Date:       2018-01-20 21:39:39
Message-ID: CALVNWHUGXLyT4kqhiL9SezGirZbdHKagfNQDb_5Mp-E4Y+rKcQ () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]


> > <arg line="--add-modules java.activation"/>
>
> > inside <javadoc> does the trick, but then it has to be conditional for
> > Java 9, at least until a new version of javax.mail-api that pulls in a
> > JEE JAF implementation is available.
>
> > Should I activate an if/else namespace in the buildfile and add a new
> > property checking for Java 9 to, say, check-javadoc?
>
> There already is jdk9+ which gets set in check-optional-packages
>

That led me to rearranging of dependencies between targets; pity that <arg>
does not understand if...


> Not being able to resolve a class a javodc comment links used to be no
> error but only a warning, so I am stubborn and consider the problem a
> warning. :-)
>
> > I guess something similar must be done in POMs?
>
> No idea. You'd probably have to fiddle with profiles, then. Do we really
> want to invest time in making the POMs suitable for building javadocs?
> To me their only purpose is to be useful together with jars we publish
> to Maven central. I know they can be used to build and test the parts in
> question but that's not really something that is important IMHO.
>

I want Maven to work not the least because I want to get rid of "root"
property hack that makes unit tests so much more complex (which was
introduced due to limitations in ancient Surefire).

Gintas


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]