On 11/24/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw > > > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle: > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html > > > > > > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put > > > in. > > > Opinions? > > > > > > I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java, > > the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw ResourcesException > > (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they throw > > that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or can), > > then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the > > Javadocs. > > They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from > RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the > method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should > leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be > thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun > does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 - > its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not > the method signature. >
+1 and if you want checkstyle to shut up about this, add <module name="JavadocMethod"> <property name="allowUndeclaredRTE" value="true"/> </module> Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
