Hi Gilles, >> >> An alternative would be to document unchecked exceptions in the >> javadoc, but not in @throws tags. Something along the lines "this >> method should throw/throws an XXXException if...". This way, we would >> be able to remove the exceptions from the method signature if we feel >> that it would be better, and checkstyle would not complain (although I >> actually don't think it does with the current settings). >> I do not have any preference, here. However, I do like the fact that >> unchecked exceptions *are* somehow documented, just to remind me what >> preconditions I should check (as a user). > > I don't understand why you suggest to not use "@throws" tags. > Because I thought you were not too happy with that. I obviously misunderstood, sorry.
> > All (non-trivial) exceptions must be documented. The Javadoc "@throws" is > especially useful for advertising _unchecked_ exception. > [In some sense, "@throws" tags are redundant for checked exceptions, because > those are detected by the parser/compiler and their existence can be > advertised automatically.] > > Checkstyle indeed does not complain if an unchecked exception is documented > but does not appear in the signature of a method. > > I think that the rules stated in "Effective Java" are simple and consistent. > That's fine with me. Thanks again. Best regards, Sébastien --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
