I agree. Public things (classes/interfaces/methods/etc) should always have non-empty docs, I think, but private things rarely need it.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Sergey Evdokimov <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > In the Ignite code each class / method / field has a javadoc. Test code and > code in the private packages must have javadocs too. In the most cases > javadoc does not has value, it just duplicates member name. This pointless > javadoc take developer's time and takes lines in the editor. Furthermore > pointless javadoc distract attention from the real javadoc. > > May be we should change our guidelines. What do you think? > -- -- Pavel Tupitsyn GridGain Systems, Inc. www.gridgain.com
