I would also prefer to change the checkstyle rules to ignore missing @param and @return comments.
Sometimes params really are obvious enough not to be documented, and in some other cases it is better to document them as part of the main method description rather than a separate tag. So blindly enforcing this check doesn't seem helpful... Simon Lessard wrote: > > To be more precise checkstyle whines about missing @param and @return, > which > is theoretically nice. However, JSF's JavaDoc is broken and doesn't > specifies those most of the time, so the question is is it better to match > the official API or to make checkstyle happy? > > On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Simon Lessard > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > >> Hi all, >> >> It seems that checkstyle doesn't like JSF's official JavaDoc. Personally >> I >> would give higher priority to completed comments than checkstyle whining, >> what you guys think about it? >> > -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/JavaDoc-and-checkstyle-tp20803530p20911066.html Sent from the My Faces - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
