Solr is in a different scenario though - the primary use case is to run as a server. The majority of the java code is implementation to support that. I personally don't refer to javadoc (by itself) during development - so normal comments work just as well. Documentation of methods should be on an as-needed basis, not mandated everywhere.
-Yonik http://lucidworks.com On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Tommaso Teofili <tommaso.teof...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > What do you think about (re) enabling javadoc check for Solr build too? > At start it may be a little annoying (since a lot of Solr code misses proper > javadoc thus we may have lots of failing builds) but that should turn in > being a very useful thing for devs once that's fixed and we keep adding > javadocs along with checked in code. > > So basically that should just use current Lucene's task for checking javadoc > and make the build fail if there's any missing javadoc. > We could add that as soon as 4.1 is out. > > What do you think? > Regards, > Tommaso --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
