Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org>
Received-SPF: neutral (asf.osuosl.org: local policy)
From: James Ring <sjr@jdns.org>
To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: [cli] HelpFormatter.pad(String, int, Writer) in cli2
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 02:21:12 +1100
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed;
  boundary="nextPart1980072.UWtQ76ivD2";
  protocol="application/pgp-signature";
  micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <200602110221.17337.sjr@jdns.org>

--nextPart1980072.UWtQ76ivD2
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Hi all,

I was thinking that

protected static void pad(final String text,
	final int width,
	final Writer writer) throws IOException

would read better as

protected static void pad(final String text,
	final int width,
	final PrintWriter writer)

for the following reason:

pad() has protected access in HelpWriter. All non-JUnit callers pass a=20
PrintWriter to pad() anyway, which does not throw IOException in its write(=
)=20
method. So, the upshot is that pad() no longer has to throw IOException.

In fact, I think there would be no need for IOExceptions to be thrown by=20
HelpWriter at all. If callers want to know if an error occurs inside=20
HelpWriter, they can call getPrintWriter().checkErrors().=20

What do people think?

Thanks!

Regards,
James

=2D-=20
James Ring

--nextPart1980072.UWtQ76ivD2
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBD7K9t8iUSK0BWyO4RAiFxAJ95Nlr2m3T1epaV0M+kg9xAVC+VHQCfeEax
W3TCv1GJf05rS7CJG1tMiBs=
=wvEi
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart1980072.UWtQ76ivD2--