In that case, my vote would be to just put it in release notes. If there
are others in JDK 8, then maybe
they could be listed together.
Michael
On 07/08/13 17:03, Joe Darcy wrote:
Hello,
Source incompatible changes of this magnitude (if not exact
character), have been made in major release before.
IMO, release notes are the proper mechanism to inform users of such a
change rather than the constructor javadoc. (Putting such
time-sensitive notes in javadoc tends to age poorly and become a
distraction rather than a help.)
Cheers,
-Joe
On 08/07/2013 08:49 AM, Michael McMahon wrote:
As a matter of interest, what (if any) precedent is there for such
source incompatible changes? Maybe it's more common that I thought.
Michael.
On 07/08/13 16:45, Chris Hegarty wrote:
I'm not sure if there is precedent for adding such release notes
inline in the javadoc (and subsequently removed in the next major
release), but I am not opposed to it in principle. I guess it may
look something like:
* <p>Note: In this release, this constructor no longer declares
* that it throws {@code SocketException}. Callers that explicitly
* handle {@code SocketException} ( or one of its superclasses )
* may need to remove this explicit exception handling.
Anyone every encounter this kind of comment before, or have a strong
opinion either way ( I'm personally on the fence ).
-Chris.
On 06/08/2013 20:25, Matthew Hall wrote:
On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:18:39PM +0100, Michael McMahon wrote:
Documenting in release notes is okay too, but I suspect developers
are not
likely to look there at first anyway. Thinking aloud, it would be
nice if
some kind of annotation could be associated with the affected
constructors
such that a more meaningful/customized error message could be
emitted by
javac. But, perhaps there aren't sufficient other use cases to
justify that.
Many of us use Eclipse, NetBeans, and JavaDoc.
So if we just had a comment in the JavaDoc, saying this was fixed,
and what to
do, that ought to be more than adequate, and would prevent missing
it if you
didn't see the relnotes.
Matthew.
