On 7/25/11 1:36 AM, luc.maison...@free.fr wrote: > Hi Jörg, > > ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Jörg Schaible" <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com> > À: dev@commons.apache.org > Envoyé: Lundi 25 Juillet 2011 09:19:36 > Objet: Re: [math] Inherits doc and @Override > >> Hi Phil, >> Phil Steitz wrote: >>> On 7/24/11 10:52 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: >>>> Hi Phil, >>>> >>>> Phil Steitz wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 7/24/11 3:13 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: >>>>>> Hello. >>>>>> >>>>>>> I saw in the sources serveral /** {@inheritDoc} */ on methods with >>>>>>> @Override annotation. Javadoc knows to inherit the javadoc of the >>>>>>> overwritten methos, so there is no need for @inheritDoc. >>>>>>> If all agree, one could drop this if the code is modified? >>>>>> CheckStyle complains if there isn't a Javadoc block. >>>> Bad argument. Adjust the rule. >>>> >>>>> Right, and including it creates a placeholder to expand on or modify >>>>> the inherited javadoc. I think we should keep it. >>>> We finally removed it in our code base here at my company and it looks so >>>> much cleaner. Why keep superfluous lines of "boiler plate stuff" without >>>> any relevance? If there is something to document on, I'd expect a little >>>> more than {@inheritDoc} anyway. >>> Here's the problem as I see it. Code with no javadoc is bad, bad, >>> bad. Especially for library code, which is what we do here. >>> Removing the check opens the door to this badness. Maybe a "bad >>> argument" but practical (unless there is some simple checkstyle >>> magic that I don't know about, which is quite possible). Secondly, >>> every time I paste in {@inheritDoc} or see it in our code, I ask >>> myself if the inherited doc is accurate and adequate. I know you >>> may respond that the same could apply just looking at the @Override >>> and emptiness, but I personally like seeing the javadoc block >>> there. I won't complain about removal if we can find a way to keep >>> the check functioning without adding ad hoc work for committers; but >>> I don't personally see this as a problem. >> what I've actually observed is, that developers who do not document, will >> also happily ignore any boiler plate @inheritDoc. Having checkstyle to look >> for it does not help, because such a developer has configured his IDE to add >> the boiler plate anyway. Therefore I'd rather see clean code (especially for >> wrappers) than having a lot of pointless lines that *I* simply call clutter >> here. > I agree with the rationale, but not with the conclusion. I don't think we have > that much committers that would simply hit the IDE keystroke to build bad > javadoc all the time. So when the javadoc should be extended, it is written, > and when it can be reduced, it is. So a simple {@inheritDoc} does provide me > an information, mainly that this code is a simple inheritance and its spec is > fully defined by the upper class. A completely missing javadoc makes me wonder > it it is something that was forgotten, or a simple inheritance like in the > former > case. > >> We all know, that this discussion is in the end philosophical only and >> neither I want to enforce any general rule nor am I religious about this > I agree, it is philosophical, and I won't either go further in this > discussion, > so if other decide those simple {@inheridDoc} are bad, then they can remove > them. > >> issue, but do me a favor and try it yourself. Take some code with a lot of >> this boiler plate stuff, remove it and let the cleaned code sink in for a >> while. :) > I'm sure I will get used to this view if we try it. It will just take a few > time to > get accustomed to it. So once again, if someone feels the need to give it a > try and > write the small script that will wipe these on-liners in one command, don't > hesitate.
Please do not do this in any of [math], [pool] or [dbcp] unless and until there is a way to get checkstyle to differentiate the truly missing stuff from the missing inherit annotations. Phil > > best regards, > Luc > >> - Jörg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org