On 11/25/05, Phil Steitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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>
Thanks for the checkstyle tip Phil :-) Niall > Phil --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
