Actually the ',' causes a bug in the maven-javadoc-plugin. What seems to work is to split it into 2 parts:
<additionalparam>-Xdoclint:all -Xdoclint:-missing</additionalparam> Already started a discussion about adding it to apache-parent over in maven-dev. LieGrue, strub > On Thursday, 1 May 2014, 11:05, Mark Struberg <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I would prefer it if the reports were warnings rather than errors, but >> generally they seem sensible. > > > Allow me to disagree. Breaking the javadoc just because a @param is missing > is > imo plain wrong. > > Usually parameters should be self-explaining. I personally only document > interfaces and methods where it is *not* clear what the params intend. > > > Please don't let us end up with tons of unnecessary (because obvious) > Javadocs just to make java8 happy. > > I've done some research and asked some Java8 devs I know. Seems > > <additionalparam>-Xdoclint:all,-missing</additionalparam> > > could do the trick. Still need to test it though. > > We should btw add this to the apache-parent pom and not only to > commons-parent. > > LieGrue, > strub > > > > > > On Wednesday, 16 April 2014, 20:51, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 April 2014 19:32, Gary Gregory <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I personally like the default Java 8 behavior and I would not want to >>> disable it. >> >> I would prefer it if the reports were warnings rather than errors, but >> generally they seem sensible. >> >> -1 to adding it to the parent POM as a default. >> It might have been OK to do so if it were possible to activate it only >> when Java 8 is being used to a component that targets Java 5,6,7. >> But suppressing DocLint for source that targets Java 8 seems a very bad > idea. >> Unfortunately ANDed activation conditions for profiles are borked and >> have been for ages. >> >> I think it's OK to use in component POMs because each component will >> be different. >> And it can be easily removed when the source has been updated. >> >>> Gary >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Matt Benson > <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> I think the implication was that adding it to the parent POM would > not >>>> encourage us to actually *solve* the underlying issue. ;) >>>> >>>> Matt >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Emmanuel Bourg > <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> > Le 16/04/2014 18:41, sebb AT ASF a écrit : >>>> > > See below for one way to automatically suppress Javadoc > errors when >>>> > > running under Java 8 >>>> > > >>>> > > It should not be adopted as a permanent measure, but may > be useful >>>> > > whilst Javadoc is being fixed. >>>> > >>>> > Can we add that to the parent pom? >>>> > >>>> > Emmanuel Bourg >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] >>>> > >>>> > >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] >>> Java Persistence with Hibernate, Second > Edition<http://www.manning.com/bauer3/> >>> JUnit in Action, Second Edition > <http://www.manning.com/tahchiev/> >>> Spring Batch in Action <http://www.manning.com/templier/> >>> Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com >>> Home: http://garygregory.com/ >>> Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory > >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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]
