As pointed out by Mark Webb, the initial intention was to avoid having
long classes without ANY javadoc.As a developper, I don't really care
that a class implementing an interface also inherits the javadoc. I'd
rather get some hint about which javadoc is inherited, by the explicit
use of whatever @see or @inehritdoc tag. Otherwise, you have no clue if
the class has been written by a lazy guy who don't care about users or
by someone who consider that it's user's business to make the difference.
The fact that we are almost all using 'modern' IDE is totally irrelevant
to the issue. Considering Eclipse, waiting half a second on top of a
method declaration in order to get the small yellow box to open, then
having to press F2 to get the full content of the javadoc, with sliders
on right side and bottom is just a PITA. Having a very simple javadoc on
the code is so much simpler, and cost energy to one simgle person
instead of annoying hundreds. We are writing code for others, not for
our own pleasure.
Now, considering your attitude : your are sometime just behaving like a
stubborn childish person. You are interpreting the ASF rules at your own
advantage, with no respect for person around you. Like it or not, this
is not the way it works. When I asked you to revert the code, this is
because we reached a point where we have to discuss the portion of code
you have committed, it was not a punishment. But you took it as if I
wanted to personally insult you, and you insulted me in return. I will
swallow the insult, because it's just totally irrelevant to the discussion.
I don't care about what you think as a person, I care about what you do
as a committer on an ASF project. This is what I want you to consider.
--
--
cordialement, regards,
Emmanuel Lécharny
www.iktek.com
directory.apache.org
