commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pascal Schumacher <pascalschumac...@gmx.net>
Subject Re: [IO-564] Javadoc inheritance for ByteArrayOutputStream.write
Date Sat, 06 Jan 2018 10:40:27 GMT
imho option a is acceptable

Am 06.01.2018 um 05:13 schrieb Bernd Eckenfels:
> Hello,
>
> Hao Zong reported some missing Details in the JavaDoc of ByteArrayOutputStream#write.
While I dont think it is critical we should probably fix it, since a user asked for it.
>
> I am willing to go through the streams of [IO] and adjust them, but I Need to know how:
>
>
> a) Remove the JavaDoc of those overwritten API methods completely. This will inherit
the JavaDoc from the official Stream classes which is in this case aproperiate and complete.
This will make a good JavaDoc and shortst possible Code but the Code Looks underdocumented
then.
> b) Like a) but Keep a non-Javadoc comment giving the existing short description and a
note to the effect of not having JavaDoc. This retains the full JavaDoc doc, the source is
however a bit longer with a uncommon block comment.
> c) Use javadoc with @{inheritDoc}. This makes it clear what is going on, however the
@Throws documentation would Need to be replicated as it is not inherited.
> d) Expand the existing documentation. This will take most work and space in the Code
>
> Whats your Preference? I would really like to use a) in this case, is this acceptable?
>
>
> Gruss
> Bernd



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message