commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From luc.maison...@free.fr
Subject Re: svn commit: r1030464 [1/3] - in /commons/proper/math/trunk/src: main/java/org/apache/commons/math/ main/java/org/apache/commons/math/analysis/ main/java/org/apache/commons/math/analysis/integration/ main/java/org/apache/commons/math/analysis/inte
Date Fri, 05 Nov 2010 16:32:10 GMT

----- "Gilles Sadowski" <gilles@harfang.homelinux.org> a écrit :

> Hello.
> 
> > >> So go ahead with the change, removing the throws from the
> declaration but keeping the javadoc as suggested previously.
> > >
> > > Again, what is it that you try to convey by specifying a single
> exception in
> > > the Javadoc? Any unchecked exception can be thrown from a class
> that
> > > implement the interface.
> > > If the user code doesn't care that the evaluation fails, it should
> catch
> > > everything and continue. Alternatively, if it cannot continue, it
> should let
> > > the exception propagate. In either case, there isn't any useful
> information
> > > from a Javadoc "@throws" tag: We already know that unchecked
> exceptions can
> > > arise.
> > 
> > I don't know if it's relevant here, but it's standard practice in
> lots
> > of code I've seen to document unchecked exceptions in the @throws
> > block if your code explicitly throws it.
> 
> This would be the minimum, but it seems that CM tries to be better in
> that
> it aims at also documenting the exceptions thrown from the called
> code.

No. We try to explain what the user could throw or rather provide guidelines
on what to throw.

> Of course it is more work on the part of the developer and also more
> difficult do check for consistency when reading the code (short of
> following
> all the calls).

Yes, and it what I like in checked exception, but I will not come back to this
discussion, now we use unchecked exception, so we document them.

Luc

> 
> > However I would not put this
> > tag on the interface method declaration, because maybe some
> > implementation doesn't throw that exception. [...]
> 
> +1
> 
> 
> Best,
> Gilles
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org


Mime
View raw message