Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 51176 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2004 14:26:19 -0000 Received: from daedalus.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (208.185.179.12) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2004 14:26:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 97908 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2004 14:26:10 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cocoon-dev-archive@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 97883 invoked by uid 500); 16 Apr 2004 14:26:10 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cocoon.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Reply-To: dev@cocoon.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cocoon.apache.org Received: (qmail 97866 invoked from network); 16 Apr 2004 14:26:09 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO main.gmane.org) (80.91.224.249) by daedalus.apache.org with SMTP; 16 Apr 2004 14:26:09 -0000 Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BEUIF-0007Bc-00 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:26:11 +0200 Received: from host190-154.pool80204.interbusiness.it ([80.204.154.190]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:26:11 +0200 Received: from nicolaken by host190-154.pool80204.interbusiness.it with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:26:11 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: dev@cocoon.apache.org From: Nicola Ken Barozzi Subject: Re: [VOTE] Make ProcessingException extend CascadingRuntimeException Date: Fri, 16 Apr 2004 16:26:04 +0200 Lines: 20 Message-ID: References: <407F7DDB.2030905@apache.org> <407F8A17.2090208@cbim.it> <407F995B.3010209@cbim.it> <407FD287.7030402@cbim.it> <407FE7B1.6060100@cbim.it> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: host190-154.pool80204.interbusiness.it User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.5 (Windows/20040207) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en In-Reply-To: <407FE7B1.6060100@cbim.it> Sender: news X-Spam-Rating: daedalus.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N Ugo Cei wrote: ... >> And for the specific case of ProcessingExceptions: Does not almost >> every of our >> components have the ProcessingException in its throws clause? So where >> is the >> need for catching/wrapping/rethrowing them?? Only current bad usage is >> not a reason for changing it IMO. > > The compiler forces you to catch them. It does because it's part of the contract. We can agree that the current contract is bad, but this does not mean that it must be thus completely removed. -- Nicola Ken Barozzi nicolaken@apache.org - verba volant, scripta manent - (discussions get forgotten, just code remains) ---------------------------------------------------------------------