You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@pdfbox.apache.org by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> on 2016/05/26 15:21:18 UTC
remove obsolte IOException declarations
Hi,
from time to time I come across a method signature with … throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
BR
Maruan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 26 May 2016, at 08:21, Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> from time to time I come across a method signature with … throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt necessary.
In newer code these are probably for extensibility (so that a user-defined subclass can throw IOException) but in older code, as you say, many such exceptions are unnecessary.
As a breaking API change they will definitely have to wait until 3.0, so it’s probably not worth even thinking about that right now.
— John
> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
> BR
>
> Maruan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
Am 27.05.2016 um 16:51 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler:
>>>
>>> My main wish would be a 2.0.2 release due to the signature bug.
>>
>> we could do that right away - if the release manager finds the time :-)
> I already thought about a new release before going on summer holiday.
> How about cutting a release in round about 10 days from now?
+1
Tilman
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Am 26.05.2016 um 19:53 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>
>> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:50 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>>
>> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:45 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>>>
>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:51 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> from time to time I come across a method signature with \u2026 throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
>>>>>> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional 2.1 branch:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WDYT?
>>>>> I'm not in favor of that as we already have to apply patches to 1.8.x, 2.0.x and 2.1. If there is yet another active branch that adds to that. I'll open an issue for 3.0 to not forget about that.
>>>> That's correct, but once we introduce an major change, we have to do that split, but only if we want to introduce a possible 2.1 version.
>>> I'd see us do a 2.1 as we want to keep PDFBox stable for a while and not do another major release 'shortly'
>>>
>>>> The 1.8. branch will become more and more obsolete. IMHO we won't cut more than 1 or 2 more releases.
>>> Maybe do a 2.1 in the not to far future (August?) and retire 1.8 after that. We could agree on the topics to work on for 2.1. For me that's
>>
>> My main wish would be a 2.0.2 release due to the signature bug.
>
> we could do that right away - if the release manager finds the time :-)
I already thought about a new release before going on summer holiday. How about
cutting a release in round about 10 days from now?
BR
Andreas
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:50 schrieb Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>:
>
> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:45 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>>
>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:51 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> from time to time I come across a method signature with … throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
>>>>> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional 2.1 branch:
>>>>>
>>>>> WDYT?
>>>> I'm not in favor of that as we already have to apply patches to 1.8.x, 2.0.x and 2.1. If there is yet another active branch that adds to that. I'll open an issue for 3.0 to not forget about that.
>>> That's correct, but once we introduce an major change, we have to do that split, but only if we want to introduce a possible 2.1 version.
>> I'd see us do a 2.1 as we want to keep PDFBox stable for a while and not do another major release 'shortly'
>>
>>> The 1.8. branch will become more and more obsolete. IMHO we won't cut more than 1 or 2 more releases.
>> Maybe do a 2.1 in the not to far future (August?) and retire 1.8 after that. We could agree on the topics to work on for 2.1. For me that's
>
> My main wish would be a 2.0.2 release due to the signature bug.
we could do that right away - if the release manager finds the time :-)
>
> If we do a 2.1 release, then retire the 2.0 and keep the 1.8.* for a while, I think that one has a big user base.
yes, that's better.
>
>>
>> Appearance generation (which can also extend into 2.2 with an intial support in 2.1 - some appearances are harder to generate than others e.g. stamps)
>
> You mean the clouds? I don't see this as a big priority. I've never seen these except in test documents.
yes, that's another one.
>
> Tilman
>
>> Easier forms creation
>> (Visible) Signature rewrite (which ties into the topics above)
>> Incremental safe
>>
>> I was planning for Complex Script support but that could also wait until after 2.1 which would then come together with a better text formatter.
>>
>> Shall we update the ideas page accordingly?
>>
>> BR
>> Maruan
>>
>>
>>> BR
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>> BR
>>>> Maruan
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> BR
>>>>> Andreas
>>>>>
>>>>>> BR
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Maruan
>>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Tilman Hausherr <TH...@t-online.de>.
Am 26.05.2016 um 19:45 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>
>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:51 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> from time to time I come across a method signature with \u2026 throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
>>>> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional 2.1 branch:
>>>>
>>>> WDYT?
>>> I'm not in favor of that as we already have to apply patches to 1.8.x, 2.0.x and 2.1. If there is yet another active branch that adds to that. I'll open an issue for 3.0 to not forget about that.
>> That's correct, but once we introduce an major change, we have to do that split, but only if we want to introduce a possible 2.1 version.
> I'd see us do a 2.1 as we want to keep PDFBox stable for a while and not do another major release 'shortly'
>
>> The 1.8. branch will become more and more obsolete. IMHO we won't cut more than 1 or 2 more releases.
> Maybe do a 2.1 in the not to far future (August?) and retire 1.8 after that. We could agree on the topics to work on for 2.1. For me that's
My main wish would be a 2.0.2 release due to the signature bug.
If we do a 2.1 release, then retire the 2.0 and keep the 1.8.* for a
while, I think that one has a big user base.
>
> Appearance generation (which can also extend into 2.2 with an intial support in 2.1 - some appearances are harder to generate than others e.g. stamps)
You mean the clouds? I don't see this as a big priority. I've never seen
these except in test documents.
Tilman
> Easier forms creation
> (Visible) Signature rewrite (which ties into the topics above)
> Incremental safe
>
> I was planning for Complex Script support but that could also wait until after 2.1 which would then come together with a better text formatter.
>
> Shall we update the ideas page accordingly?
>
> BR
> Maruan
>
>
>> BR
>> Andreas
>>
>>> BR
>>> Maruan
>>>
>>>
>>>> BR
>>>> Andreas
>>>>
>>>>> BR
>>>>>
>>>>> Maruan
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
> Am 26.05.2016 um 19:29 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>
> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:51 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>> Hi,
>>
>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> from time to time I come across a method signature with … throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>>>>
>>>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
>>> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional 2.1 branch:
>>>
>>> WDYT?
>>
>> I'm not in favor of that as we already have to apply patches to 1.8.x, 2.0.x and 2.1. If there is yet another active branch that adds to that. I'll open an issue for 3.0 to not forget about that.
> That's correct, but once we introduce an major change, we have to do that split, but only if we want to introduce a possible 2.1 version.
I'd see us do a 2.1 as we want to keep PDFBox stable for a while and not do another major release 'shortly'
>
> The 1.8. branch will become more and more obsolete. IMHO we won't cut more than 1 or 2 more releases.
Maybe do a 2.1 in the not to far future (August?) and retire 1.8 after that. We could agree on the topics to work on for 2.1. For me that's
Appearance generation (which can also extend into 2.2 with an intial support in 2.1 - some appearances are harder to generate than others e.g. stamps)
Easier forms creation
(Visible) Signature rewrite (which ties into the topics above)
Incremental safe
I was planning for Complex Script support but that could also wait until after 2.1 which would then come together with a better text formatter.
Shall we update the ideas page accordingly?
BR
Maruan
>
> BR
> Andreas
>
>>
>> BR
>> Maruan
>>
>>
>>>
>>> BR
>>> Andreas
>>>
>>>> BR
>>>>
>>>> Maruan
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Am 26.05.2016 um 17:51 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
> Hi,
>
>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> from time to time I come across a method signature with \u2026 throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>>>
>>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
>> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional 2.1 branch:
>>
>> WDYT?
>
> I'm not in favor of that as we already have to apply patches to 1.8.x, 2.0.x and 2.1. If there is yet another active branch that adds to that. I'll open an issue for 3.0 to not forget about that.
That's correct, but once we introduce an major change, we have to do that split,
but only if we want to introduce a possible 2.1 version.
The 1.8. branch will become more and more obsolete. IMHO we won't cut more than
1 or 2 more releases.
BR
Andreas
>
> BR
> Maruan
>
>
>>
>> BR
>> Andreas
>>
>>> BR
>>>
>>> Maruan
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Maruan Sahyoun <sa...@fileaffairs.de>.
Hi,
> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:45 schrieb Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>:
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>> Hi,
>>
>> from time to time I come across a method signature with … throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>>
>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional 2.1 branch:
>
> WDYT?
I'm not in favor of that as we already have to apply patches to 1.8.x, 2.0.x and 2.1. If there is yet another active branch that adds to that. I'll open an issue for 3.0 to not forget about that.
BR
Maruan
>
> BR
> Andreas
>
>> BR
>>
>> Maruan
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by John Hewson <jo...@jahewson.com>.
> On 26 May 2016, at 08:45, Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
>> Hi,
>>
>> from time to time I come across a method signature with … throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>>
>> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
> I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional 2.1 branch:
>
> WDYT?
I think that we definitely don’t want the trunk on 3.0, because then we’ll be back in the same situation we had with 2.0, where we have a new incompatible codebase which gets the new features and it will be years before it’s time for another actual major release.
The trunk should stay ready for release as 2.next, that way we won’t get in a mess again. Development of major refactoring or experimental new stuff should ideally happen on feature branches (like my no-awt branch), and those feature branches should be relatively short-lived.
Obviously we’d keep a branch for 2.prev as well, for bug fixes.
— John
> BR
> Andreas
>
>> BR
>>
>> Maruan
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
Re: remove obsolte IOException declarations
Posted by Andreas Lehmkuehler <an...@lehmi.de>.
Hi,
Am 26.05.2016 um 17:21 schrieb Maruan Sahyoun:
> Hi,
>
> from time to time I come across a method signature with \u2026 throws IOException where the code will not throw an exception and as such the declaration is nt neccessary.
>
> Can we remove such declarations in minor releases (e.g. 2.1) or does that need a major release (e.g. 3.0).
I'm afraid that's a change which requires a major release. Which leads to the
question if we might change the trunk from 2.1 to 3.0 and create an additional
2.1 branch:
WDYT?
BR
Andreas
> BR
>
> Maruan
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@pdfbox.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@pdfbox.apache.org