=== on 29 May 2015, 08:46:00 Massimo PALADIN wrote:
\[~ann.campbell.2] could you please review this java sub-task?

=== on 29 May 2015, 14:52:26 Ann Campbell wrote:
looks good [~massimo.paladin]

=== on 4 Jun 2015, 13:10:24 Massimo PALADIN wrote:
@Ann I added an exception to this rule, could you validate the change?

=== on 4 Jun 2015, 14:24:58 Ann Campbell wrote:
looks good [~massimo.paladin]

=== on 16 Aug 2018, 00:22:34 Michal Domagala wrote:
Hello,

I am interested in justification and history of this issue. Basically, this rule looks very strange and I would like to know how this concept was invented.

What I found:

1. Initially, someone figured that methods, which do not access instance fields should be static, but didn't explained why.

2. Next other someone realized that the rule is wrong for non-private methods. So the rule is implemented only for private methods, but without explanation why

3. I also found that initially someone expected that the rule has (among others) performance meaning, but someone later realized that it is not true. I think it was a good moment to review sense of the rule, but the review was not performed.


I applied the rule to joda time library and 19 code smells was detected.


Do you think that code

----
/**
  * Checks whether the period is non-null.
  * 
  * @throws IllegalArgumentException if the period is null
  */
 private void checkPeriod(ReadablePeriod period) {
     if (period == null) {
         throw new IllegalArgumentException("Period must not be null");
     }
 }
----

smells bad and ``++private static void checkPeriod(ReadablePeriod period)++`` smells good?


I think that the rule was based on wrong assumption, was heavy modified without review the sense and encourages to bad style coding. Effectively, it is anti-rule and should be deleted.

include::../comments-and-links.adoc[]