Le 10/02/2012 11:23, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:58:30AM +0100, Sébastien Brisard wrote: >> Hi Thomas, >> 2012/2/10 Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>: >>> 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. >>> >> Here is a recent thread on this issue (as you can see, this thread was >> caused by a faulty commit from me...). >> Best regards, >> Sébastien >> >> http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/commons-dev/201201.mbox/%3C20120113105913.GM6537%40dusk.harfang.homelinux.org%3E >> > > It was not a faulty commit since you followed the rule stated in the > developer's manual, as Thomas just pointed out. ;-} > Let's note that the manual is not always up-to-date; but in this particular > case, the difficulty is compounded because we don't all have the same > feeling about this rule. > I'd just say that we should not add systematically the exceptions to the > signature. Those who like it would do it in the code they often contribute > to, hopefully not cluttering the code which they don't have to test very > often...
The unwritten consensus here for the last few months seems to be: there are different points of view which cannot be reconciled. So we gave up on achieving consistency and everyone does as he sees fit. Thomas and Sébastien, please don't put this on the plate once again. It is one the the deep wounds in our community and I would very much let it to rest and heal. Do as you want for the declarations. Don't try to achieve perfect consistency on this topic throughout the component. thanks, Luc > > > Best regards, > Gilles > > > [1] And by the fact that the exception debate has generated so much > discussion in the past 18 months that I didn't want to write a document > about the new exceptions, that would be irrelevant a few weeks later... > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
