Hi Jeremias,

Jeremias Maerki wrote:
> On 01.10.2009 15:08:55 Vincent Hennebert wrote:
>> Hi Alexander,
>>
>> Alexander Kiel wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> do we use <code>, <tt> or {...@code}? I found all three version. Is there a
>>> Checkstyle for that?
>> Use {...@code}. HTML tags should be avoided as much as possible.
>>
>>
>>> Do we introduce a newline between the Javadoc body and the @param,
>>> @return or @throws clause?
>> Yes.
> 
> I'm sure Vincent wanted to write "Yes, that would be my preference.".
> "We", the project as a whole, have no such rule.

I was under the impression that this was an unwritten convention applied
by every active committer. Having re-checked, this is actually not the
case. Sorry.

I indeed find that a blank line makes the comment clearer. But that’s no
big deal. A helpful javadoc is what really counts.


> Our code conventions are here:
> http://xmlgraphics.apache.org/fop/dev/conventions.html
> plus the Checkstyle configuration which has become a de-facto standard,
> you could say. Everything beyond that is personal preference.
> 
> That said, I'm against over-regulating. Can you actually check that
> blank line in Checkstyle? I don't think so. Going beyond what we already
> have in terms of conventions doesn't make much sense as long as noone
> fixes each and every Checkstyle violation in FOP.
> 
>>> Again I see both:
>>>
>>>     /**
>>>      * create the /Font object
>>>      *
>>>      * @param fontname the internal name for the font
>>>      * @param subtype the font's subtype
>>>      * @param basefont the base font name
>>>      * @param encoding the character encoding schema used by the font
>>>      */
>>>
>>>     /**
>>>      * Sets the Encoding value of the font.
>>>      * @param encoding the encoding
>>>      */
>>>
>>>
>>> Best Regards
>>> Alex
>> Vincent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jeremias Maerki

Vincent

Reply via email to