You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@commons.apache.org by Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> on 2005/11/23 07:57:49 UTC
[resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
I've refreshed the Commons Resources site, sorted most the checkstyle issues
and sorted a couple of build issues. AFAIK its pretty much ready for a
release. except for a couple of things:
1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put in.
Opinions?
2) Rahul raised an issue with JDBCResources on the commons-user list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg13618.html
Is there anything else needs doing before cutting a release candidate? Would
it be useful to provide a more detailled description of the changes I've
made?
Niall
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Christian Meder <ch...@absolutegiganten.org>.
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 22:17 +0000, Niall Pemberton wrote:
> >From my point of view, unless someone objects, both these issues are
> now resolved.
>
> However, having looked in more detail at the code base, I feel that
> the ResourcesBase implementation could do with some improvement in its
> implementation of the content retrieval methods. I have created a
> bugzilla with my proposed changes for review (including JUnit tests)
> here:
>
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37642
>
> Comments/feedback would be much appreciated. I'm planning to commit
> these in a few days if there are no objections and then roll a release
> candidate.
I was just checking out the commons-resources source code for a project
I'm working on. Reading the source code I felt the same about the
ResourceBase implementation and after reading your patch I'm definitly
+1 on your changes.
I'm still wondering why the MessageFormat stuff from the Struts
MessageResources wasn't pushed down in commons-resources. I think it
would make sense to have the parametric replacement available in
commons-resources. Does anybody know why it wasn't pushed in when
commons-resources was split out from Struts ?
Greetings,
Christian
> On 11/23/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > I've refreshed the Commons Resources site, sorted most the checkstyle issues
> > and sorted a couple of build issues. AFAIK its pretty much ready for a
> > release. except for a couple of things:
> >
> > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> >
> > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put in.
> > Opinions?
> >
> > 2) Rahul raised an issue with JDBCResources on the commons-user list:
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg13618.html
> >
> > Is there anything else needs doing before cutting a release candidate? Would
> > it be useful to provide a more detailled description of the changes I've
> > made?
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
--
Christian Meder, email: chris@absolutegiganten.org
The Way-Seeking Mind of a tenzo is actualized
by rolling up your sleeves.
(Eihei Dogen Zenji)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
>From my point of view, unless someone objects, both these issues are
now resolved.
However, having looked in more detail at the code base, I feel that
the ResourcesBase implementation could do with some improvement in its
implementation of the content retrieval methods. I have created a
bugzilla with my proposed changes for review (including JUnit tests)
here:
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37642
Comments/feedback would be much appreciated. I'm planning to commit
these in a few days if there are no objections and then roll a release
candidate.
Niall
On 11/23/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> I've refreshed the Commons Resources site, sorted most the checkstyle issues
> and sorted a couple of build issues. AFAIK its pretty much ready for a
> release. except for a couple of things:
>
> 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
>
> My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put in.
> Opinions?
>
> 2) Rahul raised an issue with JDBCResources on the commons-user list:
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg13618.html
>
> Is there anything else needs doing before cutting a release candidate? Would
> it be useful to provide a more detailled description of the changes I've
> made?
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 11/25/05, Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/25/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/25/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 11/24/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they
> > throw
> > > > > > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > > > > >
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> > > > > >
> > > > > > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they
> > were
> > > > put
> > > > > > in.
> > > > > > Opinions?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at
> > Resources.java
> > > > ,
> > > > > the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw
> > > > ResourcesException
> > > > > (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that
> > they
> > > > throw
> > > > > that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or
> > > > can),
> > > > > then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove
> > the
> > > > > Javadocs.
> > > >
> > > > They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from
> > > > RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the
> > > > method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should
> > > > leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be
> > > > thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun
> > > > does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 -
> > > > its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not
> > > > the method signature.
> > >
> > >
> > > OK. Now what is the justification for the init and destroy methods in
> > > Resources to explicitly state that they throw ResourcesException, but
> > not
> > > the other methods? That seems a little odd.
> >
> > I agree it is inconsistent so I'm not going to try and justify it. At
> > the end of the day IMO it doesn't matter which way you go and its just
> > a question of whether inconsistency in this case matters enough to
> > change things. If the consensus is it does, my preference would be to
> > change the init/detroy method signatures simply because that
> > represents the least amount of work. If you (or anyone else) has a
> > strong opinion on this, then I'll go with that and get this put to
> > bed.
>
>
> I've seen a trend in API design towards explicity documenting (in Javadocs)
> the RuntimeExceptions that a method might throw, but not declaring the
> "throws" clause (because the language doesn't require you to use try/catch
> around calls to those methods). My initial leaning would be towards this
> (which would mean removing the throws on init/destroy) but leaving the docs
> alone.
>
> I'm definitely +1 we should be consistent throughout the API, though ... and
> that we need to address this now and not later.
OK I've changed the method signatures so that ResourceExceptions are
not declared - just documented in the API. As well as Resources and
implementations, I also noticed the same was true from
ResourcesFactory and its implementations, so I changed them as well:
http://svn.apache.org/viewcvs?rev=349025&view=rev
Niall
>
> Craig
>
>
> > --
> > > Martin Cooper
> > >
> > >
> > > Niall
> > > >
> > > > > My tuppence.
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Martin Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@apache.org>.
On 11/25/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/25/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 11/24/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they
> throw
> > > > > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > > > >
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> > > > >
> > > > > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they
> were
> > > put
> > > > > in.
> > > > > Opinions?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at
> Resources.java
> > > ,
> > > > the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw
> > > ResourcesException
> > > > (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that
> they
> > > throw
> > > > that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or
> > > can),
> > > > then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove
> the
> > > > Javadocs.
> > >
> > > They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from
> > > RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the
> > > method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should
> > > leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be
> > > thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun
> > > does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 -
> > > its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not
> > > the method signature.
> >
> >
> > OK. Now what is the justification for the init and destroy methods in
> > Resources to explicitly state that they throw ResourcesException, but
> not
> > the other methods? That seems a little odd.
>
> I agree it is inconsistent so I'm not going to try and justify it. At
> the end of the day IMO it doesn't matter which way you go and its just
> a question of whether inconsistency in this case matters enough to
> change things. If the consensus is it does, my preference would be to
> change the init/detroy method signatures simply because that
> represents the least amount of work. If you (or anyone else) has a
> strong opinion on this, then I'll go with that and get this put to
> bed.
I've seen a trend in API design towards explicity documenting (in Javadocs)
the RuntimeExceptions that a method might throw, but not declaring the
"throws" clause (because the language doesn't require you to use try/catch
around calls to those methods). My initial leaning would be towards this
(which would mean removing the throws on init/destroy) but leaving the docs
alone.
I'm definitely +1 we should be consistent throughout the API, though ... and
that we need to address this now and not later.
Niall
Craig
> --
> > Martin Cooper
> >
> >
> > Niall
> > >
> > > > My tuppence.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Martin Cooper
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 11/25/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/24/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> > > > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> > > >
> > > > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were
> > put
> > > > in.
> > > > Opinions?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java
> > ,
> > > the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw
> > ResourcesException
> > > (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they
> > throw
> > > that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or
> > can),
> > > then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the
> > > Javadocs.
> >
> > They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from
> > RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the
> > method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should
> > leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be
> > thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun
> > does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 -
> > its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not
> > the method signature.
>
>
> OK. Now what is the justification for the init and destroy methods in
> Resources to explicitly state that they throw ResourcesException, but not
> the other methods? That seems a little odd.
I agree it is inconsistent so I'm not going to try and justify it. At
the end of the day IMO it doesn't matter which way you go and its just
a question of whether inconsistency in this case matters enough to
change things. If the consensus is it does, my preference would be to
change the init/detroy method signatures simply because that
represents the least amount of work. If you (or anyone else) has a
strong opinion on this, then I'll go with that and get this put to
bed.
Niall
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> Niall
> >
> > > My tuppence.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Martin Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 11/24/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> > > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> > >
> > > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were
> put
> > > in.
> > > Opinions?
> >
> >
> > I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java
> ,
> > the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw
> ResourcesException
> > (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they
> throw
> > that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or
> can),
> > then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the
> > Javadocs.
>
> They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from
> RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the
> method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should
> leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be
> thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun
> does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 -
> its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not
> the method signature.
OK. Now what is the justification for the init and destroy methods in
Resources to explicitly state that they throw ResourcesException, but not
the other methods? That seems a little odd.
--
Martin Cooper
Niall
>
> > My tuppence.
> >
> > --
> > Martin Cooper
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 11/25/05, Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/24/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> > > > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> > > >
> > > > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put
> > > > in.
> > > > Opinions?
> > >
> > >
> > > I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java,
> > > the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw ResourcesException
> > > (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they throw
> > > that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or can),
> > > then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the
> > > Javadocs.
> >
> > They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from
> > RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the
> > method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should
> > leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be
> > thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun
> > does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 -
> > its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not
> > the method signature.
> >
>
> +1 and if you want checkstyle to shut up about this, add
>
> <module name="JavadocMethod">
> <property name="allowUndeclaredRTE" value="true"/>
> </module>
Thanks for the checkstyle tip Phil :-)
Niall
> Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Phil Steitz <ph...@gmail.com>.
On 11/24/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> > On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> > >
> > > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> > > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> > >
> > > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put
> > > in.
> > > Opinions?
> >
> >
> > I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java,
> > the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw ResourcesException
> > (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they throw
> > that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or can),
> > then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the
> > Javadocs.
>
> They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from
> RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the
> method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should
> leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be
> thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun
> does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 -
> its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not
> the method signature.
>
+1 and if you want checkstyle to shut up about this, add
<module name="JavadocMethod">
<property name="allowUndeclaredRTE" value="true"/>
</module>
Phil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Niall Pemberton <ni...@gmail.com>.
On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> >
> > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put
> > in.
> > Opinions?
>
>
> I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java,
> the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw ResourcesException
> (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they throw
> that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or can),
> then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the
> Javadocs.
They can throw those exceptions, but since they're derived from
RuntimeExceptions it doesn't make any difference wether they're in the
method signature or not. I've changed my mind and think we should
leave them as it is - the javadoc informs people that they can be
thrown - whether they choose to handle them or not is up to them. Sun
does the same kind of thing in java.util.ResourceBundle in java 1.4 -
its getObject() method has Runtime exceptions in the javadoc, but not
the method signature.
Niall
> My tuppence.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Rahul Akolkar <ra...@gmail.com>.
On 11/23/05, Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > I've refreshed the Commons Resources site, sorted most the checkstyle
> > issues
> > and sorted a couple of build issues. AFAIK its pretty much ready for a
> > release. except for a couple of things:
> >
> > 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> > RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> > http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
> >
> > My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put
> > in.
> > Opinions?
>
>
> I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java,
> the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw ResourcesException
> (and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they throw
> that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or can),
> then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the
> Javadocs.
>
<snip/>
IMO, the public contract implied by the Resources interface means its
only fitting that all get*() methods in that interface as well as all
interface implementations declare that they throw
ResourcesKeyException. I think that the more generic
ResourcesException was meant to wrap any underlying RuntimeException
(other than MissingResourceException), and I've no preference about
declaring that. Indeed, there is only one place where a
ResourcesException is ever thrown in the (non-test) codebase [1], and
that behavior will need to be consistently applied elsewhere as
appropriate, or the single occurence removed.
As I was looking at ResourcesException, I also find that it
redundantly implements Serializable [2], since all Throwable's are
(expected to be) Serializable anyway.
Unfortunately, given the long weekend, I'm about to step out and I
won't have access to a development machine for almost a week, so sorry
about not being able to immediately help in any of the things I've
pointed out. If these or other things (including item 2 below) need
any attention after I'm back, I'd be happy to join the fun via
proposed Bugzilla patches.
-Rahul
[1] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/xref/org/apache/commons/resources/impl/ResourceBundleResources.html#342
[2] http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/xref/org/apache/commons/resources/ResourcesException.html#32
> My tuppence.
>
> --
> Martin Cooper
>
>
> 2) Rahul raised an issue with JDBCResources on the commons-user list:
> >
> >
> > http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg13618.html
> >
> > Is there anything else needs doing before cutting a release candidate?
> > Would
> > it be useful to provide a more detailled description of the changes I've
> > made?
> >
> > Niall
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
Re: [resources] Preparation for a Release Candidate
Posted by Martin Cooper <ma...@apache.org>.
On 11/22/05, Niall Pemberton <ni...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> I've refreshed the Commons Resources site, sorted most the checkstyle
> issues
> and sorted a couple of build issues. AFAIK its pretty much ready for a
> release. except for a couple of things:
>
> 1) Quite a few methods are declaring in the javadoc that they throw
> RuntimeExceptions, which are coming out on the checkstyle:
> http://jakarta.apache.org/commons/resources/checkstyle-report.html
>
> My preferenc is to removed these, but I can understand why they were put
> in.
> Opinions?
I think the code should say what it means. ;-) Looking at Resources.java,
the init() and destroy() methods declare that they throw ResourcesException
(and Javadoc that). All of the other methods do not declare that they throw
that exception, but the Javadocs say they do. If they really do (or can),
then they should declare that. If they don't, then we should remove the
Javadocs.
My tuppence.
--
Martin Cooper
2) Rahul raised an issue with JDBCResources on the commons-user list:
>
>
> http://www.mail-archive.com/commons-user%40jakarta.apache.org/msg13618.html
>
> Is there anything else needs doing before cutting a release candidate?
> Would
> it be useful to provide a more detailled description of the changes I've
> made?
>
> Niall
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
>