On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:48:23 +0900
이희승 (Trustin Lee) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:44:00 +0900, Emmanuel Lecharny  
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote:
> >> On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:21:43 +0900, Emmanuel Lecharny  
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> 이희승 (Trustin Lee) wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 23 May 2008 12:02:45 +0900, Emmanuel Lecharny  
> >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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'd just move the cursor on the method?  That shows pretty
> >>>> nicely rendered JavaDoc in modern IDEs.
> >>> Sometime, you just have to use vi or emacs. Make it simple for
> >>> users : add a @see tag. Cost almost nothing, and it helps.
> >>
> >> I wouldn't bother with vi or emacs.  They pay for what they use.   
> >> Moreover, it's not 'almost nothing'.
> > -1.
> >
> > Please revert the commit.
> 
> -1.  I have a valid point not to add those @see tags.
> 
> If you really want to see them added, add them by yourself.  I
> disagree with what you suggest anyway.
> 
> Now you are behaving like a manager, who is a bladder but does no
> actual action.
> 

Due to the number of mail Emmanuel is sending, I can't say he's doing
nothing here.

Julien

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to