On Tue, Aug 7, 2012 at 10:24 AM, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@scalaris.com>wrote:
> Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Neidhart wrote: > > > On 08/06/2012 10:00 PM, Jörg Schaible wrote: > >> > >> =================== %< ========================== > >> > >> Betreff: svn commit: r1369931 - in > >> > > /commons/proper/collections/trunk/src/main/java/org/apache/commons/collections: > >> keyvalue/ list/ > >> Absender: t...@apache.org > >> Datum: Mon, 06 Aug 2012 19:21:30 +0000 > >> Newsgruppe: gmane.comp.jakarta.commons.scm > >> > >> Author: tn > >> Date: Mon Aug 6 19:21:29 2012 > >> New Revision: 1369931 > >> > >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1369931&view=rev > >> Log: > >> Checkstyle fixes. > >> > >> [snip] > >> > >> @@ -55,14 +55,18 @@ public abstract class AbstractMapEntryDe > >> } > >> > >> > //----------------------------------------------------------------------- > >> + > >> + /** {@inheritDoc} */ > >> public K getKey() { > >> return entry.getKey(); > >> } > >> > >> + /** {@inheritDoc} */ > >> public V getValue() { > >> return entry.getValue(); > >> } > >> > >> + /** {@inheritDoc} */ > >> public V setValue(V object) { > >> return entry.setValue(object); > >> } > >> =================== %< ========================== > >> > >> Geeez, what's that for an annoying change? Since Java 5 this is already > >> the default for Javadoc when overwriting/implementing methods, so adding > >> a Javdoc comment with a single @inheritDoc is completely superfluous and > >> adds simply clutter! > >> > >> Can we stop Checkstyle complaining about it and revert these lines > again? > > > > If you have a better solution, I am really willing to include it. > > > > My suggestion to go for java 6 source compatibility to be able to use > > @Override tags was so far objected. > > @Override and the Javadoc inheritance is not related, automatic Javadoc > inheritance works for Java 5 independently. It seems just this bogus > Checkstyle rule, but I have nothing done with Checkstyle rules ever. > Yes, I am perfectly aware of this. My goal was to bring the number of checkstyle warnings to a manageable amount, so see the real issues more easily (now there are still more than 800 warnings). Afaik, there is no easy way to exclude certain methods from the check, it only works on scope level, but as these methods all have public scope, we are somehow stuck. Thomas
