On 4/21/2014 2:45 AM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
Hello Steve,
------------------------
/**
* Returns the type of the bevel border.
+ *
+ * @return 0 if the bevel type is {@code RAISED}, 1 if {@code
LOWERED}
*/
------------------------
I think such description reveals unnecessary level of code abstraction.
Developers always need to use BevelBorder.RAISED and
BevelBorder.LOWERED constant and never their numerical representation.
It would better to say that the method return the bevel type: RAISED
or LOWERED.
I thought about that, but the method signature is
public *int*getBevelType()
and I wasn't sure if saying it returns "RAISED or LOWERED" clearly
matched the signature. I will make it so.
------------------------
/**
* Returns whether or not the border is opaque.
+ *
+ * @return true
*/
public boolean isBorderOpaque() { return true; }
------------------------
It would better to also add the similar comment from the parent
AbstractBorder class like: "This implementation returns true".
It seems that the "code" tag can be used with boolean values: {@code
true}
okay, http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8040893/8040893.2/ has
changes for above
thanks for the quick feedback,
-steve
Thanks,
Alexandr.
On 4/18/2014 2:48 AM, Steve Sides wrote:
Hello,
Could you please review the fix for the following bug:
https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8040893
Webrev corresponding:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8040893/
webrevComment.txt:
This addresses missing @parm and @return block tags in javadoc for
javax/swing/border classes as noted by doclint.
It does not address methods which are missing javadoc comment
altogether,
of which there are many.
It also a adds @return to isBorderOpaque() methods which were
incorrectly
inheriting the default, @return false, from AbstractBorder.
thanks,
-steve
