On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:21:07 +0900, 이희승 (Trustin Lee)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:59:46 +0900, 이희승 (Trustin Lee)
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 13:52:49 +0900, Mike Heath <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote:
Every public methods except for the constructors are overridden from
its supertypes and interfaces. They all got proper JavaDoc
comments. Let me know if I am missing something.
Adding a @see Class#method() in the implementation then should help.
When you look at a method javadoc it's better to know where too look
at : the intheritance scheme can be feilry complex, and it can be a
burden to retreive the associated Javadoc.
Something like :
/**
* @see javax.naming.Context#close()
*/
public void close() throws NamingException
...
I think @see is the wrong approach for this situation. We should use
@inheritedDoc instead of @see. With @see you get no useful
information if your IDE supports in-editor popup docs. You also have
to make an extra click to get to useful information when browsing the
JavaDocs which is almost as annoying as empty docs.
Also with @inheritedDoc you can see immediately in the code that there
are JavaDocs for the method.
IMO using @inheritedDoc instead of empty JavaDocs should be the
standard practice in any Java project.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] is a good idea. However, it's only useful when you have
something to add to the supertype's documentation. Otherwise, empty
JavaDoc is simply replaced with the supertype's documentation AFAIK.
Therefore something like the following doesn't have much meaning:
/**
* [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*/
Please let me know if I misunderstood how javadoc works.
I added [EMAIL PROTECTED] tags to some methods and found that [EMAIL PROTECTED]
removes 'Description copied from class: SuperType' message when javadoc
is generated. Other than that, I couldn't find any difference.
However, I don't like to see that annoying message with close-to-zero
information (i.e. copied from...), so I started to like to add
[EMAIL PROTECTED] to all empty JavaDocs.
BTW, I found that DefaultByteBufferQueue.size(), iterator() and peek()
have empty documentation in the generated JavaDoc. It's probably because
their documentation is in JDK rather than in local source code. Do you
know if there is any option that asks javadoc to fetch JDK documentation?
Google got the answer:
http://forum.java.sun.com/thread.jspa?threadID=5264128&tstart=0
--
Trustin Lee - Principal Software Engineer, JBoss, Red Hat
--
what we call human nature is actually human habit
--
http://gleamynode.net/
