commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "James Carman" <>
Subject RE: [lang] enhanced version of Class.forName
Date Tue, 06 Sep 2005 15:27:30 GMT
Well, what does the [lang] "team" think about this approach (just letting
Class.forName() throw the ClassNotFoundException)?  Does this work for you
guys?  I have added a patch to issue 36512 which includes code to implement
it this way (my latest patch).  Are there any votes against this method
being implemented this way?  If not, do you guys care if I go ahead and
commit it (I'll wait a while for votes)?  Since I'm not a "normal" [lang]
committer, I don't want to step on anyone's toes.

-----Original Message-----
From: Emmanuel Bourg [] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:04 AM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [lang] enhanced version of Class.forName

James Carman wrote:
> Do you think we need to go through the trouble of throwing an
> IllegalArgumentException if it's not a well-formed class name (starts with
> character, blah blah blah)?  Or, can we just let it throw a
> ClassNotFoundException after doing as much as we can with the string
> passed in (i.e. transforming it into the proper format)? 

I was going to make this suggestion, that seems good enough to me.

Emmanuel Bourg

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message