Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Message-ID: <407FD287.7030402@cbim.it>
Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 14:33:11 +0200
From: Ugo Cei <u.cei@cbim.it>
Organization: C.B.I.M.
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031016
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dev@cocoon.apache.org
Subject: Re: [VOTE] Make ProcessingException extend CascadingRuntimeException
References: <A22ADD8E-8F28-11D8-AAD9-000A95DC4186@apache.org>
 <c5nuam$68k$1@sea.gmane.org> <407F7DDB.2030905@apache.org>
 <c5o09k$9tv$1@sea.gmane.org> <407F8A17.2090208@cbim.it>
 <c5o3dp$g1j$1@sea.gmane.org> <407F995B.3010209@cbim.it>
 <c5odbt$6c5$1@sea.gmane.org>
In-Reply-To: <c5odbt$6c5$1@sea.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
> Ugo Cei wrote:
>> For 2.2 (which we have agreed will require JDK 1.4 IIRC, so we can 
>> count on exception chaining) I will propose to define a 
>> Cocoon-specific hierarchy of exceptions, whose root is 
>> java.lang.RuntimeException. And 3rd party exception classes like 
>> SAXException will have to be wrapped inside Cocoon-specific runtime 
>> exceptions.
> Gaaak! Why so? I just don't get it, you don't like wrapping but are 
> going to do it nevertheless?

I'm going to wrap only if I'm forced to or it adds value, i.e. 
information. Not just because I am forced by a "throws" clause in a 
method signature.

If there's no "throws", I get to decide whether to wrap or not.

>> How about this?
>>
>>   } catch (ProcessingException e) {
>>     getLogger().debug("Rethrowing exception", e);
>>     throw new SAXException(e);
>>   }
>>
>> This is not only useless, it's plain wrong.
> 
> First of all, why are you logging? Useless.

Me? This is not code I wrote, it's in our CVS.

I'm not into pshychic reading, but it seems to me quite evident that 
whoever wrote that code was feeling somewhat helpless or even guilty: "I 
don't know what to do with this ProcessingException that I'm *forced* to 
catch by the compiler, so I'm going to log it to share the burden of my 
guilt". But the author should not blame himself of feel guilty. He 
should blame the fact that ProcessingException is checked.

Do you know what this is? This is a _code_ _smell_ and I want to remove it.

Obviously, you appreciate checked exceptions more than I do, and there's 
nothing wrong with that. You are in Gosling's camp, and probably the 
majority of programmers is with you. I'm not going to change your mind 
and make you switch over to Eckel's camp in the space of a maling list 
thread.

But let's be pragmatic. We have an *evident* code smell (I hope you at 
least agree with me on this point) and want to remove it. My pragmatic 
approach is: make ProcessingException extend CascadingRuntimeException, 
find all the lines of code that match this template:

   catch (ProcessingException e) {
     getLogger().*(*);
     throw new *Exception(*, e);
   }

and simply remove them. *POOF* away goes the smell.

If you don't agree, then what is your proposal?

	Ugo