Emmanuel Bourg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are bothered about the Javadoc warnings, run the code through
Jalopy; it will fix up the javadocs with stubs containing the
parameters, return types and exceptions.
Best regards
Henning
Oliver Heger wrote:
I am having some
Henning P. Schmiedehausen wrote on Friday, October 07, 2005 11:08 AM:
Emmanuel Bourg [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
If you are bothered about the Javadoc warnings, run the code through
Jalopy; it will fix up the javadocs with stubs containing the
parameters, return types and exceptions.
This is
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
On 10/6/05, Jörg Gottschling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think patching Checkstyle would be the better way.
Good luck! I had a look at their feature request page, and there were
entries from over a year ago.
The Checkstyle team are usually responsive to RFE's with
On 10/7/05, Dennis Lundberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
On 10/6/05, Jörg Gottschling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think patching Checkstyle would be the better way.
Good luck! I had a look at their feature request page, and there were
entries from over a year ago.
Oliver Heger wrote:
I am having some fun fixing the numerous Checkstyle warnings.
One warning that is displayed very often is Missing a Javadoc comment.
For Javadoc itself this is not much of a problem because the tool knows
how to inherit the comments from super classes or implemented
I think patching Checkstyle would be the better way.
--
Jörg Gottschling
web:www.myndian.de
eMail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
GnuPG: 0x9B1C64BB
ICQ:177003788
Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Skype: joerggottschling
On 10/6/05, Jörg Gottschling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think patching Checkstyle would be the better way.
Good luck! I had a look at their feature request page, and there were
entries from over a year ago.
Btw, I think this check is actually a good idea (including
@inheritDoc), because it
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Btw, I think this check is actually a good idea (including
@inheritDoc), because it forces the developer(s) to think about
Javadoc which IMO is quite important for a library developed by
multiple persons.
True, but the rule could be twisted to something like Raise a
On 10/6/05, Emmanuel Bourg [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Btw, I think this check is actually a good idea (including
@inheritDoc), because it forces the developer(s) to think about
Javadoc which IMO is quite important for a library developed by
multiple persons.
True,
Emmanuel Bourg wrote on Thursday, October 06, 2005 5:58 PM:
Thomas Dudziak wrote:
Btw, I think this check is actually a good idea (including
@inheritDoc), because it forces the developer(s) to think about
Javadoc which IMO is quite important for a library developed by
multiple persons.
I am having some fun fixing the numerous Checkstyle warnings.
One warning that is displayed very often is Missing a Javadoc comment.
For Javadoc itself this is not much of a problem because the tool knows
how to inherit the comments from super classes or implemented
interfaces. But Checkstyle
Oliver Heger wrote:
Personally I prefer to have Javadocs for all methods. This makes the
code more readable. But it would be a bunch of work to fix this now.
There is
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jdochelper
and various other stuff on the 'forge which might help, as
usual. I haven't have
12 matches
Mail list logo