I do not agree. It is not so hard to write a couple of lines.
On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 10:06 PM, Pavel Tupitsyn <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > -- Alexey Kuznetsov GridGain Systems www.gridgain.com
