commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>
Subject Re: [math] Documenting exceptions in interfaces (MATH-854)
Date Thu, 13 Sep 2012 15:25:53 GMT
On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 07:51:29AM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 9/12/12 11:27 PM, S├ębastien Brisard wrote:
> > Dear all,
> > in previous discussions, it was decided that Interfaces (and, I
> > suppose abstract methods) should *not* have a throws clause.
> 
> I probably should have responded earlier that I personally disagree
> with that conclusion.  What is advertised in the interface may be a
> superclass of what an implementation throws; but if it makes sense
> as part of the API contract, it should be advertised by the
> interface or abstract method.

The issue (misunderstanding put aside) was not about advertizing a
superclass of an exception, but plain wrong advertizing, or, alternately,
that implementations exist that do not honour the "contract" (e.g.
"Complex.divide").


Gilles

> [...]

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


Mime
View raw message