On Mon, June 19, 2006 1:02 pm, Laurie Harper wrote: > Since this is a change to the checkstyle rules, not a change to the > codebase, I don't think it needs to wait for a release/GA/whatever. > Might as well just get it done now...
Sounds good. Tell you what... it's a minor change, but I'll create a ticket when I get home tonight and attach the updated rules file. If you (or anyone else) wants to commit it before the next milestone, cool. If not, it'll be there whenever someone's ready to do it. > Declaring runtime exceptions in the throws clause of a method signature > has no impact on the signature, so it should be safe. However, it's > generally considered poor style (on what basis I don't know, doesn't > seem like a problem to me, but...). Hmm, I just found this: http://scv.bu.edu/Doc/Java/tutorial/java/exceptions/runtime.html About midway down where they answer directly the "why shouldn't I declare runtime exceptions"... makes sense to me :) I could make the opposite argument I think, but what it says there *does* seem reasonable to me. > If there's a checkstyle rule change > that could be used to take care of this then, again, there'd be no need > to wait. If it really does need code changes, it'd be worth holding off > but opening a JIRA issue so we don't forget to come back later. I was just trying to look up the applicable Checkstyle rule from memory, but I don't remember what it was... I'll take a look when I get home and have the Checkstyle report in front of me... There probably is a setting, there usually is with Checkstyle. I'll let you know... > L. Frank --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
