> -----Original Message----- > From: Lesiecki Nicholas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 22 June 2003 11:42 > To: Cactus Developers List > Subject: RE: cvs commit: jakarta-cactus checkstyle.xml > > > I think this is something that needs to be decided *together* (i.e. all > > cactus committers). This is certainly not our current policy (which is > > why it wasn't in the checkstyle.xml). > > Yes, of course. I will fix it soon. > > > > Can you please revert ASAP and document your private methods until we > > decide we want to drop private method comments? > > The earliest I can do it for sure is Wednesday. (Leaving town in 4 hours, > need sleep, computer packed.) I may be able to do it from New York if I > have internet access and a spare moment. Many profuse apologies. I'll > take > responsibility for turning it back on and documenting all private methods > that are written in the meantime. Really, I am very sorry. I could have > done it, I was just a bit panicked when I saw 80 checkstyle errors. Most > actually weren't private methods. > > > Sorry for my bad behavior,
Hey, no problem at all! I'm not opposed to changing the way we do things. It just needs to be discussed and argumented. I now understand you were in hurry. No issue at all. BTW, my belief is that there should be very few private method in any call. A private method is often because of a bad design and failing to recognize that the method should be put in another class. For example, I've changed the getIp() method and moved it to its own class with a public method. WRT to javadoc, you don't need to do the following: /** * Return xxx * @return xxx */ It is enough to write: /** * @return xxx */ Thanks -Vincent > Nick > > --- Vincent Massol <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Nick, > > > > I think this is something that needs to be decided *together* (i.e. all > > cactus committers). This is certainly not our current policy (which is > > why it wasn't in the checkstyle.xml). > > > > Can you please revert ASAP and document your private methods until we > > decide we want to drop private method comments? > > > > Thanks > > -Vincent > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Sent: 22 June 2003 05:39 > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > Subject: cvs commit: jakarta-cactus checkstyle.xml > > > > > > ndlesiecki 2003/06/21 20:38:46 > > > > > > Modified: . checkstyle.xml > > > Log: > > > allowed Javadocless private methods > > > > > > Revision Changes Path > > > 1.17 +1 -1 jakarta-cactus/checkstyle.xml > > > > > > Index: checkstyle.xml > > > =================================================================== > > > RCS file: /home/cvs/jakarta-cactus/checkstyle.xml,v > > > retrieving revision 1.16 > > > retrieving revision 1.17 > > > diff -u -r1.16 -r1.17 > > > --- checkstyle.xml 26 May 2003 12:26:38 -0000 1.16 > > > +++ checkstyle.xml 22 Jun 2003 03:38:46 -0000 1.17 > > > @@ -101,7 +101,7 @@ > > > <property name="versionFormat" value="\$Id.*\$"/> > > > </module> > > > <module name="JavadocMethod"> > > > - <property name="scope" value="private"/> > > > + <property name="scope" value="protected"/> > > > <property name="allowUndeclaredRTE" value="true"/> > > > </module> > > > <module name="JavadocVariable"> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
