commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Shapira, Yoav" <Yoav.Shap...@mpi.com>
Subject RE: [Configuration] Throws ConfigurationException?
Date Thu, 22 Jan 2004 13:44:54 GMT

Howdy,
Long message, short comments:
- A runtime exception, yes, not a checked exception.

- Good to have for release 1.0: you wouldn't want to introduce this kind
of behavior change from 1.0 to 1.1.

- Why subclassing a commons-lang exception as opposed to the normal java
RuntimeException?  For pre-JDK 1.4 nesting compatability?

Yoav Shapira
Millennium ChemInformatics


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eric Pugh [mailto:epugh@upstate.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:51 AM
>To: Commons-Dev (E-mail)
>Subject: [Configuration] Throws ConfigurationException?
>
>Hi all,
>
>A while ago we discussed 1.0 requirements that are left.  And at this
>point,
>all have been finished except changing the api to throw a
>ConfigurationException.
>
>Now, I am thinking about how to implement this, and am not too keen on
the
>idea of ConfigurationException being a non runtime explicit Exception.
>Primarily because I expect Configuration to always work, and so when I
say:
>
>	String s = Configuration.getString("my.string");
>
>I don't want to be surrounding it with try/catch for
>ConfigurationException.
>Indeed, I know what will happen, it will join the other methods that
all
>throw Exception because if a ConfigurationException happens, there is
no
>way
>for me to deal with it, except by crashing out the app!
>
>So, if we want a ConfigurationException, why don't we make it a
extension
>of
>NestableRuntimeException (from commons-lang) and declare that we throw
>that?
>
>Or, if we aren't really sure what the Exception handling of the 1.0
version
>should be, then skip it (since what we have is "good enuf"), and move
to a
>release of 1.0 so we can really think about what we want.
>
>I think just throwing a ConfigurationException on everything that is
>explicit is going to make the API harder to use and force bigger
changes on
>everybodies code that wants to use it.
>
>
>Just one more thing..  Having said that about ConfigurationException, I
was
>looking at the ConfigurationFactory and the getConfiguration() method
>throws
>an Exception.  It really should throw a ConfigurationException that
extends
>NestableException, and then maybe we have ConfigurationException
extends
>NestableException and ConfigurationRuntimeException extends
>NestableRuntimeException?
>
>I really want to get to the 1.0 release of Configuration soon,
especially
>now that we have a database backed exceptions plus all the goodies in
>ConfigurationFactory!
>
>Eric
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org




This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may
contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged.  This e-mail is intended
only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed,
disclosed or used by anyone else.  If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately
delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender.  Thank you.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org


Mime
View raw message