From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-return-50410-listarch-gcc=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 3721 invoked by alias); 22 Apr 2002 03:54:57 -0000
Mailing-List: contact gcc-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/>
Sender: gcc-owner@gcc.gnu.org
Received: (qmail 3707 invoked from network); 22 Apr 2002 03:54:55 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mailhub1.otago.ac.nz) (139.80.64.218)
  by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 22 Apr 2002 03:54:55 -0000
Received: (from root@localhost)
	by mailhub1.otago.ac.nz (8.10.1/8.10.1) id g3M3srw03709;
	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:54:53 +1200
Received: from waitaki.otago.ac.nz (waitaki.otago.ac.nz [139.80.75.140])
	by mailhub1.otago.ac.nz (8.10.1/8.10.1) with ESMTP id g3M3sqp03629;
	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:54:52 +1200
Received: from waitaki.otago.ac.nz (IDENT:bryce@reason.otago.ac.nz [139.80.119.17])
	by waitaki.otago.ac.nz (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g3M3suu03836;
	Mon, 22 Apr 2002 15:54:56 +1200
Message-ID: <3CC38926.90804@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2002 22:01:00 -0000
From: Bryce McKinlay <bryce@waitaki.otago.ac.nz>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:0.9.7) Gecko/20011221
X-Accept-Language: en-us
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: James Williams <james_williams@optusnet.com.au>
CC: java@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Attention GCJ devel team
References: <001e01c1e797$c91c2f30$c47831d2@computer>
X-scanner: scanned by Inflex 1.0.9 - (http://pldaniels.com/inflex/)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SW-Source: 2002-04/txt/msg01062.txt.bz2

James Williams wrote:

>I am currently working on a tool that will generate class stubs complete
>with javadoc from javadoc specifications.  In your FAQ a person
>mentioned that "Considering that new Java APIs come out every week, it's
>going to be impossible to track everything."  I believe the tool I am
>developing may reduce this development challenge for you substantially.
>
>From my perspective the value of this would be that when a new specification 
>came out, the api converter could be run providing a clean framework 
>complete with all the new and deprecated api's and then the intergrator 
>could copy the existing code from the current libgcj implementation into 
>the new framework.
>

This sounds like an interesting and useful tool. However, I don't know 
whether or not we can, from a legal perspective, generate code 
directly/automatically from Javadocs. I suspect we'd have to ask the FSF 
legal people whether or not this is safe.

regards

Bryce.