Hello,
I don't think that it is a good idea to specify current implementation.
For example,
* Returns whether or not the border is opaque.
+ *
+ * @return true if {@code color} is not {@code null}, false if {@code
color}
+ * is {@code null}
Once it is specified we never can fix it.
For example, the MatteBorder.isBorderOpaque method, specified above,
can be fixed in the following way:
+ * @return true if the internal color is not null *and uses
alpha-channel*.
So I suggest to rewrite it's documentation in the following way:
* Returns whether or not the border is opaque.
+ *
+ * @return {@code true} if this border is opaque,
+ * {@code false} otherwise
The same issue with other similar methods.
Thanks,
SAM
On 23.04.2014 21:49, Steve Sides wrote:
this has the noted change for getEtchType():
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~ssides/8040893/8040893.3/
-steve
On 4/22/2014 2:03 AM, Alexander Scherbatiy wrote:
On 4/21/2014 11:54 PM, Steve Sides wrote:
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.
This looks good.
There is the javadoc for the
BorderLayout.addLayoutComponent(Component comp, Object constraints)
method that says:
"For border layouts, the constraint must be one of the following
constants: NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST, or CENTER."
and does not mention that NORTH constant is actually the "North"
String.
http://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/api/java/awt/BorderLayout.html
Could you also update the javadoc for the
EtchedBorder.getEtchType() method in the same way?
------------------------
/**
* 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
This version looks good for me.
Thanks,
Alexandr.
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
