Mailing-List: contact dev-help@ignite.incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@ignite.incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of sergi.vladykin@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.213.177 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20150220010643.GD4732@boudnik.org>
References: 
 <CA+0=VoVQuQyRZG8svhzag=RZTT47-TycXesZuHFPUOnQk+rgqQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150209050202.GK4732@boudnik.org>
 <CAOp=npPzpzuwkVD1fc+EvxJrWiWcErTMbjJGvoZzLXRbi=g=SQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoUrPd4rap-DjKBkK80ijCqUvuXYzNTo5CqHFG5i2QN+4Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+eZwrFLBZXQpAPwk25a2b=5KHc7-nrHDn8yQmvXqzPJJ5=YqA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CA+0=VoUAS8VmxP_p--b9UNg+n9bGstp_fq+F+Q=R0hr+tb=r=A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOp=npN-QB9b7bY+TZCojwKDHxijyf7X+7OPZHFSSbeM0RF9vg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20150220010643.GD4732@boudnik.org>
From: Sergi Vladykin <sergi.vladykin@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2015 14:04:00 +0400
Message-ID: 
 <CA+eZwrE+AgLkN5ovWm7LHHqzGNbick17UFYOKncBugBjL2hMxw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: use of @Nullable
To: dev@ignite.incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343c9c47e0e7050f822e23

--047d7b343c9c47e0e7050f822e23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
>

--047d7b343c9c47e0e7050f822e23--