> > This is not good style: Unchecked exceptions in method signatures do not > offer any guarantee to the caller; not that only those exceptions will be > thrown and not even that these exceptions can actually be thrown. > Thus, it brings a level of redundancy (between Javadoc and signatures) that > must be kept in sync manually; this is a burden and has no benefit.[1] > Unchecked exceptions must be documented in Javadoc, but should not appear in > method signatures (at least, not systematically). > > > Best regards, > Gilles > > [1] Luc likes to have the exception in the signatures because, as a CM > developer, he can (temporarily) change the definition of an exception > (to make it "checked") and then the compiler will tell whether some > (user) code is prepared to handle that exception. But who else is going > to do that? > Thanks for this clarification. I was merely referring to the developer's guide, which should certainly be modified. I'm otherwise happy to revert my changes (I do not like having unchecked exceptions in the signature of a method). Sébastien
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
