On 2013-05-21 22:49, Andrew Hughes wrote:
- Original Message -
On 13/05/2013 15:24, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
I think it makes sense, esp. if the messages appear to be redundant. The
compiler logic is very strict and there are cases where it comes down to
guessing user intent and com
- Original Message -
> On 13/05/2013 15:24, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> > I think it makes sense, esp. if the messages appear to be redundant. The
> > compiler logic is very strict and there are cases where it comes down to
> > guessing user intent and compilers are notoriously bad at doin
On 14/05/2013 12:35, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Thanks Joe,
The consensus seems to be to keep these warnings, and have them fixed
at some point in the relatively near future. I'm ok with that, I've
disable them locally for now, when trying to fix real failures, and
see if I can address some of them
Thanks Joe,
The consensus seems to be to keep these warnings, and have them fixed at
some point in the relatively near future. I'm ok with that, I've disable
them locally for now, when trying to fix real failures, and see if I can
address some of them over the next few weeks.
-Chris.
On 05/
Failure to have proper equals / hashCode behaviors can create hard to
discover bugs if such objects are ever put in collections.
By default, I would categorize these as real problems to be fixed and
for a @SuppressWarning annotation to be wrong approach to resolve the
warning.
Since its init
I have no objection to someone fixing these warnings. They are across a
number of different areas, and could take an amount of time to resolve.
If we are to have a concerted effort, I'm not sure that I would start
with these warnings. I too feel the pain, and it does appear that we are
moving
No objection although it feels like we are going backwards rather than
forwards.
I submitted a few bugs on this topic recently as it seems to me that
there aren't too many override warnings to kill off. Daniel Fuchs has a
patch out for review today that fixes these warnings in the jaxp
repo
On 13/05/2013 15:24, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
I think it makes sense, esp. if the messages appear to be redundant. The
compiler logic is very strict and there are cases where it comes down to
guessing user intent and compilers are notoriously bad at doing that. In
the long term, I'd like to see
I think it makes sense, esp. if the messages appear to be redundant. The
compiler logic is very strict and there are cases where it comes down to
guessing user intent and compilers are notoriously bad at doing that. In
the long term, I'd like to see @SuppressWarnings("overrides") applied in
tho
