> >> [...] > > I think we had a discussion a few months ago on how exceptions should > > be documented. We came to no agreement at that time, although one > > option (which I followed) was to > > - remove unchecked exceptions from the method's signature > > - add the unchecjked exceptions to the javadoc. > > I agree we should make sure that all exceptions are advertised in the > > javadoc. However, I don't see how Luc's trick can help us in this case > > (if we agree that exceptions should *not* appear in the signature). Am > > I missing something? > > No, you are not missing anything. Having only the javadoc without the > declaration in the signature is a pain. I would prefer to keep both. As > I said earlier in this thread, I gave up on the discussion at some time > and did not participate to the last occurrence you point out. I thought > I served a lost cause then.
Luc, I think that you are confusing two discussions. One was about the final step of the overhaul of the exceptions, where Phil preferred (among other things) to have multiple hierarchies (in order to be able to catch separately the Java standard exceptions) instead of the "MathRuntimeException" on which you and I had agreed. The discussion which Sébastien refers to is much more recent and relates to source code style (indeed) where at the time I said that the "throws" clause should not be included in the signature for unchecked exceptions but solely in the Javadoc (in line with the recommendations of "Effective Java"). [I've know changed my mind on this (for CM only, as I still think that, in general, it is nicer to not have redundant information).] Regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
