Re: RFR 8014383: StringJoiner example in class description not in sync with streams API
On 31/05/2013 11:49, Paul Sandoz wrote: Hi, Please review this JavaDoc fix to j.u.StringJoiner to update and move the examples to an api note. -- This looks okay to me. The only thing is that removing @author can sometimes to a contentious topic. Given that StringJoiner has been significantly simplified and re-worked since its initial version then it might not matter here (but mentioning it anyway). -Alan.
Re: RFR 8014383: StringJoiner example in class description not in sync with streams API
On May 31, 2013, at 1:14 PM, Alan Bateman alan.bate...@oracle.com wrote: On 31/05/2013 11:49, Paul Sandoz wrote: Hi, Please review this JavaDoc fix to j.u.StringJoiner to update and move the examples to an api note. -- This looks okay to me. Thanks. The only thing is that removing @author can sometimes to a contentious topic. Given that StringJoiner has been significantly simplified and re-worked since its initial version then it might not matter here (but mentioning it anyway). I hope no offence is taken, it's not personal. My understanding is the @author tag is no longer something we should be using for new JDK code (and to be egalitarian about it perhaps we should strip out @author tags from all the code!) Paul.
Re: RFR 8014383: StringJoiner example in class description not in sync with streams API
On 31/05/2013 12:26, Paul Sandoz wrote: : My understanding is the @author tag is no longer something we should be using for new JDK code (and to be egalitarian about it perhaps we should strip out @author tags from all the code!) I vaguely remember there was discussion on this topic a few years ago. I think (but might be wrong) that the guideline at the time was not to remove @author from existing code. In this case it is new code and if Jim is okay with it then I don't see any issue removing it. -Alan.
RE: RFR 8014383: StringJoiner example in class description not in sync with streams API
Hi, Alan. That's what I remember too. There were just too many objections to completely removing all @author tags. iris -Original Message- From: Alan Bateman Sent: Friday, May 31, 2013 5:57 AM To: Paul Sandoz Cc: core-libs-dev@openjdk.java.net Libs Subject: Re: RFR 8014383: StringJoiner example in class description not in sync with streams API On 31/05/2013 12:26, Paul Sandoz wrote: : My understanding is the @author tag is no longer something we should be using for new JDK code (and to be egalitarian about it perhaps we should strip out @author tags from all the code!) I vaguely remember there was discussion on this topic a few years ago. I think (but might be wrong) that the guideline at the time was not to remove @author from existing code. In this case it is new code and if Jim is okay with it then I don't see any issue removing it. -Alan.
