On Thursday 23 July 2009 01:12:15 Evan Daniel wrote: > The method HTMLEncoder.encode() sounds like it ought to do that. Let's take > a look at the Javadoc: > > encode > > public static java.lang.String encode(java.lang.String s)
I guess I’m the only having to take the blame for that. HTMLNode and consorts
have been committed by me. And though in a local version all of the HTML*
classes do have javadoc comments those seem to have been created after I
committed them to Freenet.
Since the time I wrote those classes I have gone over to javadoc commenting
everything I write as I write it. As you already have noticed documentation is
not a strong side of developers so that even if I had committed those files
with documentation that documentation would now be largely out of date so that
it might even be wrong. That would be equally helpful as having no
documentation at all. :)
I’m aware that the HTMLEncoder class was merely an example that you used to
demonstrate what’s wrong the code base in general. Unfortunately there’s not
really a way to force developers to write (good!) documentation for the stuff
that they do.
I have configured my Eclipse to perform javadoc validation on everything,
including checking for malformed comments and the like. And I’ve grown opposed
to files that show any warning in Eclipse so that at least the code I’m
committing in the future will have meaningful javadoc comments. I’m urging
everyone to do the same but—as I already said—you can’t enforce it.
Bombe
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
