On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >> And thats what I meant with: as long as we don't have a common >> codestyle, i does not make much sense to have a common checkstyle >> configuration. > > I thought that the question was whether to generate a CheckStyle report, not > whether the configuration should be the same...
if you add a checkstyle report without a custom config, it has the default configuration, right? In other terms, everybody would create a report based on this. Or am I wrong? >> Secondly, I have not had the feeling in the past years that checkstyle >> helped me so much (including non open source projects). And so far, my >> code was readable. > > My code is also readable... Sure, I didn't want to say otherwise :-) > I forgot to mention earlier in this thread that a code formatter will not > detect missing comments; I've also seen that some people using IDE let the > software generate totally useless "place-holder" Javadoc comments. Hence > no tool can afterwards detect that documentation is missing. Right. I really like Torsten old blog post on JavaDoc comments: http://vafer.org/blog/20050323095453/ If you have no good javadoc, leave it out. Sometimes you simply do not have good javadocs.... checkdoc should not complain about my decisions. Cheers > > > Regards, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
