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.
> Modified: > > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr/inline/LineLayoutManager.java > > Modified: > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr/inline/LineLayoutManager.java > URL: > http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr/inline/LineLayoutManager.java?view=diff&rev=555684&r1=555683&r2=555684 > ============================================================================== > --- > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr/inline/LineLayoutManager.java > (original) > +++ > xmlgraphics/fop/trunk/src/java/org/apache/fop/layoutmgr/inline/LineLayoutManager.java > Thu Jul 12 09:24:27 2007 > @@ -84,7 +84,7 @@ > private Block fobj; > private boolean isFirstInBlock; > > - /** @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
