RFR 8022126: Remove throws SocketException from DatagramPacket constructors accepting SocketAddress

[Chris Hegarty]

I'm not sure if there is precedent for adding such release notes inline 
in the javadoc (and subsequently removed in the next major release), but 
I am not opposed to it in principle. I guess it may look something like:

      * <p>Note: In this release, this constructor no longer declares
      * that it throws {@code SocketException}. Callers that explicitly
      * handle {@code SocketException} ( or one of its superclasses )
      * may need to remove this explicit exception handling.

Anyone every encounter this kind of comment before, or have a strong 
opinion either way ( I'm personally on the fence ).

-Chris.

On 06/08/2013 20:25, Matthew Hall wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 06, 2013 at 06:18:39PM +0100, Michael McMahon wrote:
>> Documenting in release notes is okay too, but I suspect developers are not
>> likely to look there at first anyway. Thinking aloud, it would be nice if
>> some kind of annotation could be associated with the affected constructors
>> such that a more meaningful/customized error message could be emitted by
>> javac. But, perhaps there aren't sufficient other use cases to justify that.
>
> Many of us use Eclipse, NetBeans, and JavaDoc.
>
> So if we just had a comment in the JavaDoc, saying this was fixed, and what to
> do, that ought to be more than adequate, and would prevent missing it if you
> didn't see the relnotes.
>
> Matthew.