lucene-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tommaso Teofili <>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS] Enable javadoc check on Solr too
Date Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:24:00 GMT
I see Yonik and Jack's points which look reasonable, but, at least for my
experience, even if Solr is meant to be a "server" it often happens that
developers (not necessarily plugins' developers) have to go deep into the
code in order to understand how actually things work under the hood / fix
bugs / etc. and I think that would really help.
Also that should help our users feel more comfortable while browsing the
Solr code which I think is important.
Wrapping up I think introducing such check couldn't harm but just improve
the overall quality of the project so I think it'd be worth the effort.

My 2 cents,

2013/1/18 Jack Krupansky <>

> To the degree that people are using Solr merely as a server, that's fine.
> I think the main issue are the "touch points" of Solr that relate to
> user-developed plugins. The parts of Solr that invoke user plugins and that
> user plugins invoke should have "Grade A Prime" Javadoc, if for no other
> reason than that Eclipse is a friendly environment for developing and
> testing plugins.
> -- Jack Krupansky
> -----Original Message----- From: Yonik Seeley
> Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 12:42 PM
> To:
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enable javadoc check on Solr too
> Solr is in a different scenario though - the primary use case is to
> run as a server.   The majority of the java code is implementation to
> support that.  I personally don't refer to javadoc (by itself) during
> development - so normal comments work just as well.  Documentation of
> methods should be on an as-needed basis, not mandated everywhere.
> -Yonik
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Tommaso Teofili
> <> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> What do you think about (re) enabling javadoc check for Solr build too?
>> At start it may be a little annoying (since a lot of Solr code misses
>> proper
>> javadoc thus we may have lots of failing builds) but that should turn in
>> being a very useful thing for devs once that's fixed and we keep adding
>> javadocs along with checked in code.
>> So basically that should just use current Lucene's task for checking
>> javadoc
>> and make the build fail if there's any missing javadoc.
>> We could add that as soon as 4.1 is out.
>> What do you think?
>> Regards,
>> Tommaso
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<>
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.**org<>
> For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message