Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Gerhard Petracek]

hi,

that's right - since it was a pretty long thread which also includes other
topics, i just linked the first message as a starting point.
anyway, does someone know a nice and correct wiki about such topics? so we
could link it in our wiki.

regards,
gerhard



2008/12/9 Simon Lessard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hi Simon,
>
> Gerhard link is correct although not including the whole post, one of the
> reply from Matthias. Maybe we should raise the issue on legal-discuss? At
> worst, your way of writing the doc sounds very reasonable as well. My team
> wouldn't need the go away for a while part however since it's two completely
> different persons coding and documenting for code reviews purpose.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I doubt very much that simply retyping javadoc from the spec is legally
>> sufficient to permit non-Aapache-licensed text to be included in an
>> Apache-licensed file.
>>
>> Note that I was *asking* whether copying was allowed; hopefully there is
>> something in the spec licenses that *does* permit it. But if not, then
>> we must follow the relevant copyright laws. I definitely interpreted the
>> original JSF1.1/JSF1.2 specs as NOT permitting copying of javadoc from
>> the spec into our classes.
>>
>> Do you happen to have a link (or even the email subject line) for the
>> earlier discussion? I must have missed that...
>>
>> Note that for dtd and schema files it is pretty easy to avoid copyright
>> issues; the vast majority of such files is data-structure definition
>> that has only one possible form, and therefore is not copyrightable.
>> Simply taking someone else's file is still wrong here, but the original
>> can be used as a "reference" for the non-copyrightable technical
>> details, so creating the new version is effectively pretty close to
>> "just retyping".
>>
>> Javadoc, however, is prose writing which is creative expression. So it
>> should *not* be used as a reference when writing new javadoc; that would
>> be plagiarism.
>>
>> I did create a significant amount of javadoc for the JSF1.1 and JSF1.2
>> implementations (though still far from complete coverage); my approach
>> was to
>> (a) ensure that the implementation matched the specification description
>> (referencing the original docs)
>> (b) go away for a while
>> (c) some time later, write the javadoc based on the *code* (not using
>> the original docs as a reference)
>>
>> From your other email:
>> 
>> p.s. I know that 1.1 and 1.2 don't have any JavaDoc copied, actually it
>> only refer to the official one online which isn't very useful for
>> offline users nor those working directly looking at the code. Keeping
>> JavaDoc out is of course a valid option as well if the community wishes
>> it, but it also implies our Maven generated JavaDoc for the site won't
>> be any good.
>> 
>>
>> I think the javadoc that was specifically written for myfaces classes is
>> more useful for end-users than the spec stuff (more helpful, less picky
>> technical detail). But yes it is a minority of classes, with most still
>> just linking to the external specs. I'm sure nobody *wants* to keep
>> javadoc external to the classes, but recreating all the docs is a big
>> task, and the alternative (copying) was IMO just not legal.
>>
>> Yes, it's annoying but copyright is copyright. And if we don't follow
>> the law then the spec copyright-holder has every right to sue.
>>
>> IANAL and all that.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Simon K.
>>
>> Simon Lessard schrieb:
>> > Hi Simon K.,
>> >
>> > We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually
>> > retyping the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since
>> > it's not copied directly it seems it's allowed.
>> >
>> > ~ Simon
>> >
>> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
>> > myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
>> > descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit
>> permission
>> > would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
>> > licensed under the Apache license...
>> >
>> > In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT
>> copy
>> > any javadoc from the spec..
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> > Simon
>> >
>> > >> 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:
>

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Lessard]

Hi Simon,

Gerhard link is correct although not including the whole post, one of the
reply from Matthias. Maybe we should raise the issue on legal-discuss? At
worst, your way of writing the doc sounds very reasonable as well. My team
wouldn't need the go away for a while part however since it's two completely
different persons coding and documenting for code reviews purpose.


Regards,

~ Simon

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I doubt very much that simply retyping javadoc from the spec is legally
> sufficient to permit non-Aapache-licensed text to be included in an
> Apache-licensed file.
>
> Note that I was *asking* whether copying was allowed; hopefully there is
> something in the spec licenses that *does* permit it. But if not, then
> we must follow the relevant copyright laws. I definitely interpreted the
> original JSF1.1/JSF1.2 specs as NOT permitting copying of javadoc from
> the spec into our classes.
>
> Do you happen to have a link (or even the email subject line) for the
> earlier discussion? I must have missed that...
>
> Note that for dtd and schema files it is pretty easy to avoid copyright
> issues; the vast majority of such files is data-structure definition
> that has only one possible form, and therefore is not copyrightable.
> Simply taking someone else's file is still wrong here, but the original
> can be used as a "reference" for the non-copyrightable technical
> details, so creating the new version is effectively pretty close to
> "just retyping".
>
> Javadoc, however, is prose writing which is creative expression. So it
> should *not* be used as a reference when writing new javadoc; that would
> be plagiarism.
>
> I did create a significant amount of javadoc for the JSF1.1 and JSF1.2
> implementations (though still far from complete coverage); my approach
> was to
> (a) ensure that the implementation matched the specification description
> (referencing the original docs)
> (b) go away for a while
> (c) some time later, write the javadoc based on the *code* (not using
> the original docs as a reference)
>
> From your other email:
> 
> p.s. I know that 1.1 and 1.2 don't have any JavaDoc copied, actually it
> only refer to the official one online which isn't very useful for
> offline users nor those working directly looking at the code. Keeping
> JavaDoc out is of course a valid option as well if the community wishes
> it, but it also implies our Maven generated JavaDoc for the site won't
> be any good.
> 
>
> I think the javadoc that was specifically written for myfaces classes is
> more useful for end-users than the spec stuff (more helpful, less picky
> technical detail). But yes it is a minority of classes, with most still
> just linking to the external specs. I'm sure nobody *wants* to keep
> javadoc external to the classes, but recreating all the docs is a big
> task, and the alternative (copying) was IMO just not legal.
>
> Yes, it's annoying but copyright is copyright. And if we don't follow
> the law then the spec copyright-holder has every right to sue.
>
> IANAL and all that.
>
> Regards,
> Simon K.
>
> Simon Lessard schrieb:
> > Hi Simon K.,
> >
> > We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually
> > retyping the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since
> > it's not copied directly it seems it's allowed.
> >
> > ~ Simon
> >
> > On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
> > myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
> > descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit
> permission
> > would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
> > licensed under the Apache license...
> >
> > In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy
> > any javadoc from the spec..
> >
> > Regards,
> > Simon
> >
> > >> 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?
> > 
> > 
> >
> >
>
>

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Kitching]

Hi,

I doubt very much that simply retyping javadoc from the spec is legally
sufficient to permit non-Aapache-licensed text to be included in an
Apache-licensed file.

Note that I was *asking* whether copying was allowed; hopefully there is
something in the spec licenses that *does* permit it. But if not, then
we must follow the relevant copyright laws. I definitely interpreted the
original JSF1.1/JSF1.2 specs as NOT permitting copying of javadoc from
the spec into our classes.

Do you happen to have a link (or even the email subject line) for the
earlier discussion? I must have missed that...

Note that for dtd and schema files it is pretty easy to avoid copyright
issues; the vast majority of such files is data-structure definition
that has only one possible form, and therefore is not copyrightable.
Simply taking someone else's file is still wrong here, but the original
can be used as a "reference" for the non-copyrightable technical
details, so creating the new version is effectively pretty close to
"just retyping".

Javadoc, however, is prose writing which is creative expression. So it
should *not* be used as a reference when writing new javadoc; that would
be plagiarism.

I did create a significant amount of javadoc for the JSF1.1 and JSF1.2
implementations (though still far from complete coverage); my approach
was to
(a) ensure that the implementation matched the specification description
(referencing the original docs)
(b) go away for a while
(c) some time later, write the javadoc based on the *code* (not using
the original docs as a reference)

>From your other email:

p.s. I know that 1.1 and 1.2 don't have any JavaDoc copied, actually it
only refer to the official one online which isn't very useful for
offline users nor those working directly looking at the code. Keeping
JavaDoc out is of course a valid option as well if the community wishes
it, but it also implies our Maven generated JavaDoc for the site won't
be any good.


I think the javadoc that was specifically written for myfaces classes is
more useful for end-users than the spec stuff (more helpful, less picky
technical detail). But yes it is a minority of classes, with most still
just linking to the external specs. I'm sure nobody *wants* to keep
javadoc external to the classes, but recreating all the docs is a big
task, and the alternative (copying) was IMO just not legal.

Yes, it's annoying but copyright is copyright. And if we don't follow
the law then the spec copyright-holder has every right to sue.

IANAL and all that.

Regards,
Simon K.

Simon Lessard schrieb:
> Hi Simon K.,
>
> We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually
> retyping the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since
> it's not copied directly it seems it's allowed.
>
> ~ Simon
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
>
> Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
> myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
> descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission
> would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
> licensed under the Apache license...
>
> In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy
> any javadoc from the spec..
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> >> 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?
> 
> 
>
>

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Lessard]

p.s. I know that 1.1 and 1.2 don't have any JavaDoc copied, actually it only
refer to the official one online which isn't very useful for offline users
nor those working directly looking at the code. Keeping JavaDoc out is of
course a valid option as well if the community wishes it, but it also
implies our Maven generated JavaDoc for the site won't be any good.

Regards,

~ Simon

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
> myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
> descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission
> would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
> licensed under the Apache license...
>
> In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy
> any javadoc from the spec..
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> >> 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?
> 
> 
>
>

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Lessard]

Hi Simon K.,

We had that discussion not long ago on another post. We're actually retyping
the whole thing, but mimicking the official JavaDoc. Since it's not copied
directly it seems it's allowed.

~ Simon

On Tue, Dec 9, 2008 at 10:06 AM, Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:

> Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
> myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
> descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission
> would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
> licensed under the Apache license...
>
> In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy
> any javadoc from the spec..
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> >> 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?
> 
> 
>
>

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Gerhard Petracek]

hello simon,

i already brought up this topic at [1]
did it happen again?

if so:
maybe it's helpful to write a general e-mail to the dev list and/or a wiki
about this topic.

regards,
gerhard

[1]
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A--JSF-2.0--Package-structure-for-Facelets-integration-p20798004.html



2008/12/9 Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
> myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
> descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission
> would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
> licensed under the Apache license...
>
> In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy
> any javadoc from the spec..
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> >> 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?
> 
> 
>
>


-- 

http://www.irian.at

Your JSF powerhouse -
JSF Consulting, Development and
Courses in English and German

Professional Support for Apache MyFaces

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Bruno Aranda]

That and rewriting any XML schema by hand. That was a funny one.

Bruno

2008/12/9 Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

> Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
> myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
> descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission
> would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
> licensed under the Apache license...
>
> In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy
> any javadoc from the spec..
>
> Regards,
> Simon
>
> >> 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?
> 
> 
>
>

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Kitching]

Hmm..by the way, are you copying-and-pasting the JSF javadoc into
myfaces classes? If so, are you sure that this is allowed? Javadoc
descriptions would definitely be copyrightable, so explicit permission
would be needed to place text released under the CDDL into a file
licensed under the Apache license...

In Myfaces core 1.1 and 1.2 releases we have been careful to NOT copy
any javadoc from the spec..

Regards,
Simon

>> 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?

 

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Bernd Bohmann]

+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?
>>>
> 

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Jan-Kees van Andel]

I wouldn't change the CheckStyle rules to ignore missing @params. Why?
Because often you (well, probably not you, but someone else) changes a
param name but forgets to change the corresponding JavaDoc. CheckStyle
is a good way to warn you about this.

@returns are most of the time redundant since the method description
usually already says something about what's returned. But even then,
it might be useful to use a @return for exceptional paths, like "this
method returns null if yadayada".

You could change the checkstyle to only report a warning in such
cases, instead of an error. This way, you get the desired warning
effect, but the error is less annoying.

Jan-Kees


2008/12/9 Simon Kitching <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> 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?
>>>
>>
>
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://www.nabble.com/JavaDoc-and-checkstyle-tp20803530p20911066.html
> Sent from the My Faces - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Kitching]

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?
>>
> 

-- 
View this message in context: 
http://www.nabble.com/JavaDoc-and-checkstyle-tp20803530p20911066.html
Sent from the My Faces - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

Re: JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Lessard]

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?
>
>
> Regards,
>
> ~ Simon
>

JavaDoc and checkstyle

[Simon Lessard]

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?


Regards,

~ Simon