+1
Simon Kitching schrieb: > I would also prefer to change the checkstyle rules to ignore missing @param > and @return comments. > > Sometimes params really are obvious enough not to be documented, and in some > other cases it is better to document them as part of the main method > description rather than a separate tag. So blindly enforcing this check > doesn't seem helpful... > > > Simon Lessard wrote: >> To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and @return, >> which >> is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and doesn't >> specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it better to match >> the official API or to make checkstyle happy? >> >> On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Simon Lessard >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: >> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> It seems that checkstyle doesn't like JSF's official JavaDoc. Personally >>> I >>> would give higher priority to completed comments than checkstyle whining, >>> what you guys think about it? >>> >
