...and surely working in a branch as suggested by Alan would be a good idea :-) Thanks Alan, Tommaso
2013/1/18 Tommaso Teofili <[email protected]> > I see Yonik and Jack's points which look reasonable, but, at least for my > experience, even if Solr is meant to be a "server" it often happens that > developers (not necessarily plugins' developers) have to go deep into the > code in order to understand how actually things work under the hood / fix > bugs / etc. and I think that would really help. > Also that should help our users feel more comfortable while browsing the > Solr code which I think is important. > Wrapping up I think introducing such check couldn't harm but just improve > the overall quality of the project so I think it'd be worth the effort. > > My 2 cents, > Tommaso > > > 2013/1/18 Jack Krupansky <[email protected]> > >> To the degree that people are using Solr merely as a server, that's fine. >> I think the main issue are the "touch points" of Solr that relate to >> user-developed plugins. The parts of Solr that invoke user plugins and that >> user plugins invoke should have "Grade A Prime" Javadoc, if for no other >> reason than that Eclipse is a friendly environment for developing and >> testing plugins. >> >> -- Jack Krupansky >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Yonik Seeley >> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:42 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enable javadoc check on Solr too >> >> >> 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 >> <[email protected]> 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: >> [email protected].**org<[email protected]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: >> [email protected].**org<[email protected]> >> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >> >> >
