Good point. I also found javadoc to be a handy development tool, because it compiles everything and finds any errors. John On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 05:27:57PM +0000, Michael Whapples wrote: > If the feeling is ant will be better for building then you will probably > want to look at creating a build.xml with a task for running javadoc. > > Anyway, point being, what ever build system is to be used will probably > have a way of running javadoc and that is more likely to be portable to > other platforms than a shell script. > > Michael Whapples > On 26/11/10 16:15, John J. Boyer wrote: > >Laura, > > > >I'll probably have another draft by Monday when Yuemei is working. I'm > >glad you like this one. The shell script is for running javadoc and was > >included for convenience. The class file is probably for Jlouisutdml, > >the bindings, and was necessary to get some things to compile. javadoc > >won't document things that don't compile. > > > >John > > > >On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 06:27:41AM -0600, qubit wrote: > >>Hi John -- > >>Well, aside from a few accidental inclusions -- such as a .class file I > >>saw > >>somewhere, and a shell script to run javac, it looks ok. > >>I haven't read through all the stub docs. > >>But it is a first draft. > >>Perhaps Yuemei should comment on the word processor part. I wondered > >>about > >>the selection of classes. But I'm not a UI expert. > >>I'm still looking at the rest of it. > >>Nice first cut. > >>--le > >> > >> > -- John J. Boyer; President, Chief Software Developer Abilitiessoft, Inc. http://www.abilitiessoft.com Madison, Wisconsin USA Developing software for people with disabilities