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.
OK. Now what is the justification for the init and destroy methods in Resources to explicitly state that they throw ResourcesException, but not the other methods? That seems a little odd. -- Martin Cooper Niall > > > My tuppence. > > > > -- > > Martin Cooper > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
