ignite-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vlady...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: use of @Nullable
Date Fri, 20 Feb 2015 10:04:00 GMT
I don't think these annotation will make development easier. It will only
require additional efforts to support these annotations in actual state on
each method. But they will not replace unit testing. I'd prefer not using
them at all if the choice is between all and nothing.

Sergi

2015-02-20 4:06 GMT+03:00 Konstantin Boudnik <cos@apache.org>:

> I think it's a great idea. But that's just my uneducated opinion.
>
> On Thu, Feb 19, 2015 at 02:51PM, Sergey Evdokimov wrote:
> > It's a wrong usage of @Nullable annotation, Ignite.jcache("mycache") must
> > NOT be marked as @Nullable , because we does not want to force
> > null-checking by user. A good place for @Nullable annotation
> > java.io.BufferedReader#readLine() method. Feel the difference.
> >
> > > I think that having annotations only on public API is ok. @NotNull and
> > > @Contract seem to be extra effort.
> > Why public only? Marking parameters in private code will make development
> > easier for us.
> >
> > If you are agree I suggest to create a ticket.
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 6:54 PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan <
> dsetrakyan@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > My problem is IDEA warnings. For example, Ignite.jcache("mycache") may
> > > return null, and if I don't check for null, IDEA gives an warning. In
> 99%
> > > of the cases here I don't need to check of null because I know that
> cache
> > > is there.
> > >
> > > D.
> > >
> > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 7:00 AM, Sergi Vladykin <
> sergi.vladykin@gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I think that having annotations only on public API is ok. @NotNull
> and
> > > > @Contract seem to be extra effort.
> > > >
> > > > Sergi
> > > >
> > > > 2015-02-09 9:33 GMT+03:00 Dmitriy Setrakyan <dsetrakyan@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > > > I generally found myself suppressing IDE warnings whenever these
> > > > > annotations are used. Personally, I would not, but I would want to
> hear
> > > > > what others think as well.
> > > > >
> > > > > D.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 8, 2015 at 10:29 PM, Sergey Evdokimov <
> > > > sevdokimov@gridgain.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Whats about @NotNull and @Contract annotations? Can we use its
> in our
> > > > > code?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Feb 9, 2015 at 8:02 AM, Konstantin Boudnik <
> cos@apache.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sounds like a good idea. In my experience having @Nullable
for
> > > > returns
> > > > > > is a
> > > > > > > good thing, as it quickly let a user of the API to see
what's
> the
> > > > > > contract.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cos
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sun, Feb 08, 2015 at 04:36PM, Dmitriy Setrakyan wrote:
> > > > > > > > Hi Igniters,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want to revisit the use of the @Nullable annotation
within
> the
> > > > > > project.
> > > > > > > > What I am noticing more and more, is that @Nullable
> annotation
> > > just
> > > > > > > causes
> > > > > > > > extra warnings in IDE, especially on public API, causing
> most of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > users
> > > > > > > > and developers to disable it.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I want to propose the following policy:
> > > > > > > > - Use @Nullable for method parameters on public API
for
> > > > documentation
> > > > > > > > purposes.
> > > > > > > > - Do not use @Nullable for return types on public
API to
> avoid
> > > > > > > unnecessary
> > > > > > > > warnings.
> > > > > > > > - Do not use @Nullable within internal implementation
logic
> to
> > > > avoid
> > > > > > > > unnecessary clutter in code.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thoughts?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > D.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message