Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
Thanks! ð
---
Github user ingvarc commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
@stokito Thanks for pointing that out, I'll keep it in mind in future.
@kinow I like the idea of a validation block and the normal behaviour. It
seems to me that in this case it is more
Github user kinow commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
Thanks @PascalSchumacher for confirming it's actually backward compatible
(#TodayILearned - and hopefully will remember it).
@ingvarc , I agree on @aaabramov regarding the `+1`. When I
Github user stokito commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
I checked and everything is ok in terms of backward compatibility. But the
commit 7f8571a506c7081bae0cf27bd93295e0344160bf "flips the order of conditional
expressions and 'if' statements whose
Github user PascalSchumacher commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
@kinow Changes to throws declaration are binary compatible (see:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/specs/jls/se7/html/jls-13.html#jls-13.4.21).
Removing checked exceptions from a throws
Github user ingvarc commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
@kinow
Since the pull request aims to refactor and to clean the code I think it
makes sense. Speaking of unchecked exceptions in 'throws' clause they are
backward compatible since the
Github user kinow commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
I'm fine either way (I believe even some classes in the JDK have some
[unchecked
Github user coveralls commented on the issue:
https://github.com/apache/commons-lang/pull/334
[](https://coveralls.io/builds/17585970)
Coverage increased (+0.01%) to 95.241% when pulling
