Scott Gray wrote:
> On 20/02/2010, at 4:24 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>
>> Scott Gray wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2010, at 4:18 PM, Adam Heath wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ==============================================================================
>>>>> ---
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/model/ModelEntity.java
>>>>> (original)
>>>>> +++
>>>>> ofbiz/trunk/framework/entity/src/org/ofbiz/entity/model/ModelEntity.java
>>>>> Sat Feb 20 22:53:18 2010
>>>>> @@ -59,9 +59,10 @@
>>>>> @SuppressWarnings("serial")
>>>>> public class ModelEntity extends ModelInfo implements
>>>>> Comparable<ModelEntity>, Serializable {
>>>>>
>>>>> + @SuppressWarnings("hiding")
>>>>> public static final String module = ModelEntity.class.getName();
>>>> Huh?
>>> I dunno ask Eclipse, it warned me that ModelEntity.module was hiding
>>> ModelInfo.module and offered me the opportunity to hide this warning. I
>>> took that opportunity.
>> That's wrong. module is used everywhere. Is eclipse so stupid that
>> it can't allow same-named *static* variables in classes?
>
> Eclipse allows it, it's just warning me in case a field is being hidden
> unintentionally. I have three options:
> 1. Change my settings to not warn me about these ever
> 2. Add the suppress warnings annotation wherever a field is intentionally
> being hidden
> 3. Put up with the false positives
>
> I went for #2 but if it bothers you I can change that approach to something
> else, I'm not really too worried about it.
4. Extend eclipse to allow per-project exclusion patterns to be
registered.
Is there a way to do 4 already? I don't use eclipse.
It seems to me that if eclipse only has this as a global flag, that it
is severely broken, as each project has it's own policies and
patterns, and eclipse shouldn't force *all* code to follow the same rules.
