cc'ing the list as I replied to the wrong address
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: Eclipse warnings....
Date: Wed, 22 Mar 2006 17:24:51 -0800
From: Jeremy Boynes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Daniel Kulp wrote:
> 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.
>
There's probably quite a lot of those from before we made the decision
to commit to 1.5. I would consider this a cosmetic change as it is not
/intended/ to change any functionality. I've certainly been doing this
with "Class" usages when I run into them.
> Also, do I just create JIRA issues for the patches?
>
Yes, please, that is the easiest way for us to track them and to make
sure the IP is licensed. If you don't mind me asking, are you the J
Daniel Kulp whose ICLA is on file?
>
>
>>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.
>
IDEA adds these to suppress warnings for things that you can't really
code around e.g. the "AccessOfSystemProperties" is raised when you
access system properties, which is often problematic except in the cases
where it isn't :-) Does Eclipse check that kind of thing and if so how
does it allow you to tag "this one is OK"?
--
Jeremy
