>-----Original Message----- >From: Nathan Beyer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2006 5:49 AM >To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org >Subject: Re: Japi diffs for harmony > >No problem on the name change, but doesn't what Stuart is talking >about require that methods add this exception to the signature to >actually show up in the reports?
I guess the answer is yes. They can be added lazily when unimplemented methods are spotted. And new stubs should have this throws from the beginning. Maybe it's worth putting this info somewhere on the site. Also having this kind of declaration will simplify searching for not implemented methods. Regards, Alexey. > >On 11/8/06, Tim Ellison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Stuart Ballard wrote: >> > Tim Ellison wrote: >> >> I'm no fan of stubs for just such reason. But for those dev's that >are >> >> following along, there is an >> >> org.apache.harmony.luni.util.NotYetImplementedException that is >defined >> >> for just such purposes. >> > >> > Would you consider renaming this to NotImplementedException since Japi >> > recognizes that name in throws clauses and treats it specially? >> > >> > If you feel strongly about not changing the existing name, I can add >> > NotYetImplementedException as an alternative hardcoded name in >> > Japitools but that seems kinda redundant... >> > >> > What do you think? >> >> I have no objection to renaming it. If nobody objects in the next day >> or so then I'll go ahead and do it. >> >> Regards, >> Tim >> >> -- >> >> Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> IBM Java technology centre, UK. >> -- Alexey A. Ivanov Intel Enterprise Solutions Software Division
