db-derby-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kristian Waagan <Kristian.Waa...@Sun.COM>
Subject Re: @see in javadoc - is it not correct?
Date Tue, 14 Feb 2006 00:12:44 GMT
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has become outdated and references non-existing fields/methods...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.
>>
>>
>>  
>>
>


Mime
View raw message