Hi Kristian,
I think the javadoc is fixed now and, for the moment, it's clean. I
would be more interested if someone spent cycles making the tinderbox
build fail on javadoc problems. That way we would catch these problems
early on.
Regards,
-Rick
Kristian Waagan wrote:
Rick Hillegas wrote:
Hi Dan,
I think that @see is still fine. This was the javadoc error I
airbrushed:
[javadoc]
C:\cygwin\home\rh161140\derby\mainline\trunk\java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\reference\Property.java:545:
warning - Tag @see: reference not found:
org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
Regards,
-Rick
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: rhillegas
Date: Mon Feb 13 12:17:47 2006
New Revision: 377480
URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=377480&view=rev
Log:
Fix javadoc warning in Property.java
- * @see org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
+ * See org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
Hmm, don't want to be nasty or something, but isn't that just
"brushing the problem under the carpet"?
Actually, I would be more happy with the warnings, then we get
reminded that something has to be fixed!
To me, it looks as if the syntax of the @see argument was/is wrong.
Shoudn't there be an '#' instead of the last '.'?
(I did find the field in the referenced class)
If there are more of these, maybe I can find some free cycles to fix
the tags, unless there are people itching more. It is worse if the
Javadoc has become outdated and references non-existing fields/methods...
--
Kristian
I thought @see was the correct item to use here.
Is there some new guideline?
Dan.
