//TODO is unstructured. @todo fits into an existing syntax, viz. that
of javadoc tags. Output in javadocs can be suppressed by '-tag
todo:X'.

My preference is therefore a javadoc tag, @todo. But I am not going to
make a case of this.

+0.

Simon

On Wed, Sep 08, 2010 at 12:02:29PM +0100, Vincent Hennebert wrote:
> Ok, let me summarise this:
> 
> ??? a @[asf.]todo tag marginally improves the formatting of a javadoc
>   comment
> ??? nobody really likes the idea of using a namespaced version of todo
>   (@asf.todo)
> ??? it is possible to tweak Checkstyle and the javadoc command to enable
>   the use of @todo
> 
> That said:
> ??? todo statements generally have little to do (sic) in a javadoc comment
>   anyway
> ??? TODO keywords are easily indexable by modern IDEs
> 
> Jeremias recommends the Felix way: using //TODO comments below the
> javadoc. I???m also strongly in favour of this convention. OTOH, if I???m
> correct nobody strongly feels that @todo tags are necessary.
> 
> So I think we have a consensus:
> ??? from now on we stop using @todo in favour of the Felix convention;
> ??? we will progressively remove TODO statements from javadoc comments and
>   move them below in their own Java // comments
> ??? I remove the definition of the custom tag from build.xml
> 
> Let me know if I missed anything.

-- 
Simon Pepping
home page: http://www.leverkruid.eu

Reply via email to