Ruben, This looks like a good suggestion to me and I think you should execute on it. i have come accross this warning too, and fixed in it many places already.
Tobias On 02.05.2011, at 14:55, "Rubén Pérez" <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Dear List, I don't usually pay attention to the warnings that eclipse reports when building the system. However, the other day I took a look and I saw that quite a lot of them are caused by the annotation: @SuppressWarnings('rawtypes'). This annotation is used to avoid the compiler warnings about the declaration or instantiation of some variables which require template arguments (such as List<type> or Map<typeA, typeB>) but are not provided. I did a little search and found out that this is because "rawtypes" is not a standard argument for the annotation @SuppressWarnings. Instead, the recommended an official keyword is 'unchecked'. Using a non-standard argument is causing that the annotation itself causes a warning, while it is not avoiding the warning which it was formerly intending to suppress. So, ironically, we end up with to different warnings instead of the single one we would get without using the annotation in the first place. This is not as important as to be called "problem" anyway, but I would like to propose to substitute all the @SuppressWarnings('rawtypes') with @SuppressWarnings('unchecked'), to avoid this kind of conflicts. However, as I feel that I don't know everything and there's probably a good reason for that keyword to be used, I would be happy if some of this measures are taken (sorted by my level of preference): 1. Avoid using "raw types" in the first placel. In other words, always specify the template type to avoid the warning in the first place. I agree that this is not possible in all the cases, but couldn't just try at least? :) 2. Change all the "rawtypes" appearances to "unchecked", so that no warnings are created. This can be done in combination with the option 1. where using raw types is unavoidable. This was the original intention when the annotation was used, after all. 3. If "rawtypes" needs to be kept as it is for some reason: * I'd like to know why this is so, and why Eclipse does not like it, if it's possible * Include at list the two keywords, so that at least the "raw types" warning is ignored. I'm talking about the syntax "@SuppressWarnings({'unchecked', 'rawtypes'})" that I've seen in some places. I hope that I'm not being too picky with this. Best regards _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
