On 20/02/2010, at 4:34 PM, Adam Heath wrote:

> 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.

It allows per project exclusions, I was listing my options for this project.  I 
like being warned where there is a potential for problems but I can do without 
this one if it bothers you.

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to