On 22 Mar 2006 11:27:53 -0700, Tom Tromey <tromey@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I'm not sure what to do here. I'm inclined to mark it as a stub. > But maybe it isn't that different from any other 'FIXME'... comments? I'd say as long as it's searchable (ie, FIXME) it's not a terribly big deal. (Suggestion: Put the results of "rgrep -i FIXME classpath/" in a text file linked from builder's homepage...). Japi can't cover everything anyway - what about if imageio is completely implemented but doesn't support any file formats? What about if crypto is completely implemented but no algorithms exist? The danger of stubs is really methods that aren't marked in any way, just sitting there, failing to work... If you want a way to mark such things, though, I can add another magic exception marker to Japi for them (PartialException? FixmeException? TodoException?) that would flag as "bad" rather than "missing". I guess another danger is that if we use the same FIXME keyword for actual missing or broken functionality as we do for things like "it would be nice to rearchitect this so the code was cleaner", the real problems become hard to search for that way too. Maybe we should standardize on particular strings to put in comments to indicate different levels of unfinishedness? Stuart. -- http://sab39.dev.netreach.com/
