On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 9/12/12 11:27 PM, Sébastien Brisard wrote: > > Dear all, > > in previous discussions, it was decided that Interfaces (and, I > > suppose abstract methods) should *not* have a throws clause. > > I probably should have responded earlier that I personally disagree > with that conclusion. What is advertised in the interface may be a > superclass of what an implementation throws; but if it makes sense > as part of the API contract, it should be advertised by the > interface or abstract method.
The issue (misunderstanding put aside) was not about advertizing a superclass of an exception, but plain wrong advertizing, or, alternately, that implementations exist that do not honour the "contract" (e.g. "Complex.divide"). Gilles > [...] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
