commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Thomas Neidhart <thomas.neidh...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [math] Merge of interface and implementation of *Test classes in stat.inference
Date Fri, 10 Feb 2012 09:50:48 GMT
On 02/10/2012 09:58 AM, S├ębastien Brisard wrote:
> Hello,
>>
>> I strongly prefer _not_ to have the (unchecked) exceptions in the signature.
>> [Arguments mentioned numerous times in previous discussions...]
>>
> It's true it has been argued only recently. I was just wondering
> whether it might be worth configuring checkstyle so as to make it
> complain about unchecked exceptions in the signature. I'm not a CS
> guru, so I don't know whether this is possible, but that would help
> new committers!

Yes indeed. I have search the ML about this topic, and had found this
thread:

http://markmail.org/message/ulhxnhplkja4iwbs?q=exceptions+list:org.apache.commons.dev/#query:exceptions%20list%3Aorg.apache.commons.dev%2F+page:1+mid:7iymuihzhy3nimum+state:results

and the developer's guideline for CM also states this:

All public methods advertise all exceptions that they can generate.
Exceptions must be documented in both javadoc and method signatures and
the documentation in the javadoc must include full description of the
conditions under which exceptions are thrown.

Could you give me some pointers about more recent discussions? I am
basically fine with the approach chosen, but would like to be consistent
in the way I contribute or edit code.

Thanks,

Thomas

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


Mime
View raw message