Yes, inheritDoc would be the right way, as long as we're on Java 1.4.2
and later (feature not available in 1.3, severly buggy in 1.4.0/1.4.1. I
would have switched a long time ago if we weren't still on 1.3.

On 13.07.2007 15:49:58 Max Berger wrote:
> Dear Fop-devs,
> 
> as always, I have no say in this, but what I usually do is to use
> 
> /** [EMAIL PROTECTED] */
> 
> This works really well, if the method inherits from a class / interface
> which is also present in the same codebase: Checkstyle is happy, and so
> is JavaDoc. Also, JavaDoc gives a warning if a method uses inheritDoc,
> but does not implement / override a method (a way of detecting renames
> in superclasses)
> 
> For some more discussion on this matter, see [1]
> 
> [1]
> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/jackrabbit-dev/200503.mbox/[EMAIL 
> PROTECTED]
> 
> hth
> 
> Max
> 
> Vincent Hennebert schrieb:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Nothing related with (and against) the original change, but I take this
> > one as an opportunity to launch the discussion. I've been having this in
> > my head for a while.
> > 
> >> -   /** @see org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.LayoutManager#initialize() */
> >> +    /** @see org.apache.fop.layoutmgr.LayoutManager#initialize() */
> > 
> > I'd like to suggest to remove such comments every time there's an
> > opportunity. They are useless for javadoc which is able to retrieve the
> > comment from the redefined method. They are painful when discovering
> > code in Eclipse because when we hover a method call, we get that comment
> > instead of the real one, which Eclipse also is able to retrieve.
> > 
> > The only reason I can think of for such a comment is to make checkstyle
> > happy. But I don't think this is a solution. Checkstyle should be aware
> > that in Java redefined methods inherit their javadoc from the original
> > one, and shouldn't complain in this case. So here it's checkstyle that
> > is wrong.
> > 
> > Anyway, there are already zillions of checkstyle warnings in the current
> > codebase, so I guess we can live with a few more.
> > 
> > 
> > WDYT?
> > Vincent
> 
> 
> 



Jeremias Maerki

Reply via email to