Hello, Tobias, thanks for your answer (at least I know somebody read me!). I would like the option 1., but as nobody but you answered, I guess I should go and do the #2.
I would like, though, to keep the use of raw types to a minimum, because it's a good programing practice and less error-prone, but I guess nobody is willing to re-inspect and modify their code according to that thought... I'm creating a ticket and assigning it to myself. This should be done in a really short while. Best regards 2011/5/4 Wunden Tobias <[email protected]> > 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] > _______________________________________________ >
_______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
