Hi!
It turned out that it is always just a bit more complicated.
Romain detected that building OpenWebBeans with Java8 did lead to bytecode
which does not work on ANY older JVM. The reason is that methods of
ConcurrentHashMap (and possibly other) has been moved to an Interface. See
OWB-952 [1]
Am Thu, 1 May 2014 11:01:32 -0500
schrieb Paul Benedict :
> Wrong syntax is different than missing syntax. The former affects
> readability while the other just affects usability. Glad you found a
> way to catch the former but ignore the latter.
I agree with the "missing should be warning", but I
Wrong syntax is different than missing syntax. The former affects
readability while the other just affects usability. Glad you found a way to
catch the former but ignore the latter.
On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 5:22 AM, Mark Struberg wrote:
> Actually the ',' causes a bug in the maven-javadoc-plugin.
Actually the ',' causes a bug in the maven-javadoc-plugin. What seems to work
is to split it into 2 parts:
-Xdoclint:all -Xdoclint:-missing
Already started a discussion about adding it to apache-parent over in maven-dev.
LieGrue,
strub
> On Thursday, 1 May 2014, 11:05, Mark Struberg wro
>I would prefer it if the reports were warnings rather than errors, but
>generally they seem sensible.
Allow me to disagree. Breaking the javadoc just because a @param is missing is
imo plain wrong.
Usually parameters should be self-explaining. I personally only document
interfaces and methods
On 16 April 2014 19:32, Gary Gregory wrote:
> I personally like the default Java 8 behavior and I would not want to
> disable it.
I would prefer it if the reports were warnings rather than errors, but
generally they seem sensible.
-1 to adding it to the parent POM as a default.
It might have bee
I personally like the default Java 8 behavior and I would not want to
disable it.
Gary
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 1:06 PM, Matt Benson wrote:
> I think the implication was that adding it to the parent POM would not
> encourage us to actually *solve* the underlying issue. ;)
>
> Matt
>
>
> On Wed,
Le 16/04/2014 19:06, Matt Benson a écrit :
> I think the implication was that adding it to the parent POM would not
> encourage us to actually *solve* the underlying issue. ;)
Well, I think defining this as an 'issue' is probably debatable :) The
Javadoc isn't broken and I'd rather invest our time
I think the implication was that adding it to the parent POM would not
encourage us to actually *solve* the underlying issue. ;)
Matt
On Wed, Apr 16, 2014 at 12:02 PM, Emmanuel Bourg wrote:
> Le 16/04/2014 18:41, sebb AT ASF a écrit :
> > See below for one way to automatically suppress Javadoc
Le 16/04/2014 18:41, sebb AT ASF a écrit :
> See below for one way to automatically suppress Javadoc errors when
> running under Java 8
>
> It should not be adopted as a permanent measure, but may be useful
> whilst Javadoc is being fixed.
Can we add that to the parent pom?
Emmanuel Bourg
See below for one way to automatically suppress Javadoc errors when
running under Java 8
It should not be adopted as a permanent measure, but may be useful
whilst Javadoc is being fixed.
-- Forwarded message --
From:
Date: 16 April 2014 17:22
Subject: svn commit: r1587961 - /co
11 matches
Mail list logo
