ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Pavel Tupitsyn <ptupit...@gridgain.com>
Subject Re: Pointless javadocs in test code and private classes
Date Thu, 30 Jul 2015 15:06:42 GMT
I agree.

Public things (classes/interfaces/methods/etc) should always have non-empty
docs, I think, but private things rarely need it.

On Thu, Jul 30, 2015 at 4:39 PM, Sergey Evdokimov <sevdokimov@gridgain.com>

> Hello,
> In the Ignite code each class / method / field has a javadoc. Test code and
> code in the private packages must have javadocs too. In the most cases
> javadoc does not has value, it just duplicates member name. This pointless
> javadoc take developer's time and takes lines in the editor. Furthermore
> pointless javadoc distract  attention from the real javadoc.
> May be we should change our guidelines. What do you think?

Pavel Tupitsyn
GridGain Systems, Inc.

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message