Chris Gray wrote: > On Friday 24 November 2006 09:05, Alexey Petrenko wrote: >> So they are implemented :) >> And that specific messages are "not implemented"? >> >> 2006/11/24, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >>> I'll try to answer according to my understanding of your question :) >>> >>> these are abstract classes that have some non-abstract methods. These >>> methods throw specific exception with specific messages on RI. We do >>> the same > > I think this pattern turns up in several places; a method is "intended" to be > overridden, and the spec specifically says that the default implementation is > an exception-throwing stub. If a team of volunteers is going to walk the > whole source tree looking for stub methods, they should probably put a > standard comment line (e.g. "stub as per spec") on every method which is > examined and found not to need NotImplementedException. Just to prevent this > discussion from being repeated ...
lol - now you know why I don't like stubs :-) I agree, best to leave a marker in both cases now. Regards, Tim -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK.
