commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Paul Benedict <pbened...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [VFS] Softening the exceptions...
Date Mon, 25 Oct 2010 15:55:26 GMT
+1 for softening all exceptions. The fact is, what reasonable recourse
is there to the user if a file operation fails? That's what checked
exceptions were supposed to be for -- mandate handling code. It's
tough to say we need to mandate handling these errors.

Paul

On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ralph Goers
<ralph.goers@dslextreme.com> wrote:
>
> On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:10 AM, James Carman wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Gary Gregory
>> <GGregory@seagullsoftware.com> wrote:
>>> Do we want the APIs to be quieter than using java.io.File for example? Or, should
exceptions be thrown from similar places?
>>>
>>
>> Definitely quieter than java.io.File!  I *hate* that API for its
>> checked exceptions.
>>
>>> I am worried that we would make all APIs "quiet" (unchecked exceptions) as a
opposed to really thinking where exceptions should be checked or return an Boolean error code
(like File mkdir)
>>>
>>
>> I'm one of those folks who think the checked exceptions are evil, so I
>> am fine with getting rid of them entirely (think about how much nicer
>> your Hibernate code looks without the checked exceptions).  Boolean
>> returns are fine I guess.  No real strong opinion on that one.
>>
>
> I'm not in favor of changing much at this point. I'd really like to get a release done
without too many more changes.
>
> Ralph
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org
>
>

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


Mime
View raw message