On Sun, 13 Jul 2003, Alex Chaffee wrote:
> > I also discovered some other issues while fixing the javadoc: > > > > - Several classes does test Strings on it own instead of using > > StringUtils.isEmpty() or StringUtils.isNotEmpty(), is that a > > deliberate design decision? > > Nope. The code could well use some refactoring to use StringUtils methods. Am applying these fixes. Enum.java and ExceptionUtils.java received these. A change was made to ReflectionUtils.java, which will not go in 2.0 but I've commited. > > - Alot of @parameter and @return javadoc is missing. > > Personally, I prefer JavaDoc tags to remain missing *unless* they add > something relevant to the documentation. Since the JavaDoc utility > automatically displays the name and type of all parameters and the return > type, JavaDoc comments like this: > > * @param amt the amount > > are just documentation bugs waiting to happen. Since JavaDoc does not get > compiled or refactored or unit tested, if someone changes the name of 'amt' > to 'amount' without changing the comment then there's no way to tell. Better > to just name your parameters meaningfully and skip the redundant comments. I agree quite a bit with Alex, I dislike javadoc for javadoc's sake. However, I'm also not adverse to someone putting in the work if they want and I'd hate to see Fredrik's patches go out of date and waste his time. As I've already pushed one batch in, finishing the job with the 2nd batch doesn't seem to make a lot of difference, so I've gone ahead and pushed in Fredrik's patch. > Case in point: you used @parameter -- isn't the proper tag @param? :-) Only in conversation :) Hen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
