Jeremy,
> I agree that we should not mix "cosmetic" stuff with real code changes
> - that just makes things more complex and by its nature "cosmetic"
> stuff should not be urgent.
Ok, what about patches to "properly" use generics, especially for the
collections. I started looking at the warnings in sca/model, but most
of those are related to the fact that NONE of the collections in the
entire package are typed. Is typing a collection considered a code
change or cosmetic? Can those changes be mixed with pure cosmetic
changes? Are those changes even wanted? The untyped nature of the
model then propagates warnings throughout the rest of the code due to
unchecked casts needed when dealing with the untyped collections.
Also, do I just create JIRA issues for the patches?
> Please submit patches for this.
>
> > Question 2:
> > In the sdo-api package, there are some annotations for
> > SuppressWarnings like:
> > @SuppressWarnings({"ClassLoader2Instantiation"})
> > and
> > @SuppressWarnings({"AccessOfSystemProperties"})
> > Those warning values aren't "standard" ones that javac recognizes nor
> > does the eclipse compiler. I'm just curious as to what
> > compiler/tool they are targeted at. (just a curiosity question,
> > nothing more)
>
> They are added by IDEA when it detects checkstyle type issues. If it is
> causing a problem we can just remove them.
>
> Out of curiosity, does Eclipse have an equivalent?
Well, the eclipse compiler just recognizes the "standard" set of flags.
For others, it emits a warning, but that warning is easy to turn off.
Before I turned it off, I just was curious where they came from.
Thanks!
--
J. Daniel Kulp
Principal Engineer
IONA
P: 781-902-8727 C: 508-380-7194
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
