I do like you do. But I can see why some fall back to the raw type as it's less "annoying" when developing.
On Thu 2014-08-07 17:26, Gunnar Morling wrote: > Hi, > > every now and then I run into usages of raw types in our code bases: > > * Class entityType (instead of Class<?>) > * Set querySpaces (instead of Set<String>) > ... > > I first thought that'd be left-overs from ancient times but apparently this > is also done in newly written code. I don't like it as in some cases it's > clearly a loss of information which requires investigation in surrounding > code to find out e.g. which types are put into a raw Set. In other cases > (e.g. Class) I prefer to use the wildcard type (Class<?>) as it avoids many > raw-type warnings in the IDE (which otherwise may obfuscate legitimate > warnings). > > Is there any reason for using raw types in new code rather than full > generic or wildcard types? > > Personally I try to fix existing usages of raw types and avoid to add new > ones if possible, but sometimes I can't (e.g. one cannot override a method > expecting a Class with a method expecting a Class<?>). > > Thanks, > > --Gunnar > _______________________________________________ > hibernate-dev mailing list > hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev _______________________________________________ hibernate-dev mailing list hibernate-dev@lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/hibernate-dev
