You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to derby-dev@db.apache.org by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org> on 2006/02/13 21:44:02 UTC
@see in javadoc - is it not correct?
rhillegas@apache.org wrote:
> Author: rhillegas
> Date: Mon Feb 13 12:17:47 2006
> New Revision: 377480
>
> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=377480&view=rev
> Log:
> Fix javadoc warning in Property.java
> - * @see org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
> + * See org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
I thought @see was the correct item to use here.
Is there some new guideline?
Dan.
Re: @see in javadoc - is it not correct?
Posted by Daniel John Debrunner <dj...@apache.org>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I think that @see is still fine. This was the javadoc error I airbrushed:
>
> [javadoc]
> C:\cygwin\home\rh161140\derby\mainline\trunk\java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\reference\Property.java:545:
>
> warning - Tag @see: reference not found:
> org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
I see (:-), I should have used a # before the field.
@see org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo#JDK_ID
Dan.
Re: @see in javadoc - is it not correct?
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Kristian,
I think the javadoc is fixed now and, for the moment, it's clean. I
would be more interested if someone spent cycles making the tinderbox
build fail on javadoc problems. That way we would catch these problems
early on.
Regards,
-Rick
Kristian Waagan wrote:
> Rick Hillegas wrote:
>
>> Hi Dan,
>>
>> I think that @see is still fine. This was the javadoc error I
>> airbrushed:
>>
>> [javadoc]
>> C:\cygwin\home\rh161140\derby\mainline\trunk\java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\reference\Property.java:545:
>>
>> warning - Tag @see: reference not found:
>> org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
>>
>> Regards,
>> -Rick
>>
>> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>
>>> rhillegas@apache.org wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Author: rhillegas
>>>> Date: Mon Feb 13 12:17:47 2006
>>>> New Revision: 377480
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=377480&view=rev
>>>> Log:
>>>> Fix javadoc warning in Property.java
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> - * @see org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
>>>> + * See org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
>>>
>
> Hmm, don't want to be nasty or something, but isn't that just
> "brushing the problem under the carpet"?
>
> Actually, I would be more happy with the warnings, then we get
> reminded that something has to be fixed!
> To me, it looks as if the syntax of the @see argument was/is wrong.
> Shoudn't there be an '#' instead of the last '.'?
> (I did find the field in the referenced class)
>
> If there are more of these, maybe I can find some free cycles to fix
> the tags, unless there are people itching more. It is worse if the
> Javadoc has become outdated and references non-existing fields/methods...
>
>
> --
> Kristian
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I thought @see was the correct item to use here.
>>>
>>> Is there some new guideline?
>>>
>>> Dan.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
Re: @see in javadoc - is it not correct?
Posted by Kristian Waagan <Kr...@Sun.COM>.
Rick Hillegas wrote:
> Hi Dan,
>
> I think that @see is still fine. This was the javadoc error I airbrushed:
>
> [javadoc]
> C:\cygwin\home\rh161140\derby\mainline\trunk\java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\reference\Property.java:545:
>
> warning - Tag @see: reference not found:
> org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
>
> Regards,
> -Rick
>
> Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>
>> rhillegas@apache.org wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Author: rhillegas
>>> Date: Mon Feb 13 12:17:47 2006
>>> New Revision: 377480
>>>
>>> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=377480&view=rev
>>> Log:
>>> Fix javadoc warning in Property.java
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> - * @see org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
>>> + * See org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
Hmm, don't want to be nasty or something, but isn't that just "brushing
the problem under the carpet"?
Actually, I would be more happy with the warnings, then we get reminded
that something has to be fixed!
To me, it looks as if the syntax of the @see argument was/is wrong.
Shoudn't there be an '#' instead of the last '.'?
(I did find the field in the referenced class)
If there are more of these, maybe I can find some free cycles to fix the
tags, unless there are people itching more. It is worse if the Javadoc
has become outdated and references non-existing fields/methods...
--
Kristian
>>>
>>
>> I thought @see was the correct item to use here.
>>
>> Is there some new guideline?
>>
>> Dan.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: @see in javadoc - is it not correct?
Posted by Rick Hillegas <Ri...@Sun.COM>.
Hi Dan,
I think that @see is still fine. This was the javadoc error I airbrushed:
[javadoc]
C:\cygwin\home\rh161140\derby\mainline\trunk\java\engine\org\apache\derby\iapi\reference\Property.java:545:
warning - Tag @see: reference not found:
org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
Regards,
-Rick
Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>rhillegas@apache.org wrote:
>
>
>
>>Author: rhillegas
>>Date: Mon Feb 13 12:17:47 2006
>>New Revision: 377480
>>
>>URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=377480&view=rev
>>Log:
>>Fix javadoc warning in Property.java
>>
>>
>
>
>
>>- * @see org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
>>+ * See org.apache.derby.iapi.services.info.JVMInfo.JDK_ID
>>
>>
>
>I thought @see was the correct item to use here.
>
>Is there some new guideline?
>
>Dan.
>
>
>
>