On 02/10/2012 09:58 AM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: > Hello, >> >> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in the signature. >> [Arguments mentioned numerous times in previous discussions...] >> > It's true it has been argued only recently. I was just wondering > whether it might be worth configuring checkstyle so as to make it > complain about unchecked exceptions in the signature. I'm not a CS > guru, so I don't know whether this is possible, but that would help > new committers!
Yes indeed. I have search the ML about this topic, and had found this thread: http://markmail.org/message/ulhxnhplkja4iwbs?q=exceptions+list:org.apache.commons.dev/#query:exceptions%20list%3Aorg.apache.commons.dev%2F+page:1+mid:7iymuihzhy3nimum+state:results and the developer's guideline for CM also states this: All public methods advertise all exceptions that they can generate. Exceptions must be documented in both javadoc and method signatures and the documentation in the javadoc must include full description of the conditions under which exceptions are thrown. Could you give me some pointers about more recent discussions? I am basically fine with the approach chosen, but would like to be consistent in the way I contribute or edit code. Thanks, Thomas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
