commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <>
Subject Re: [lang] LANG-686 Recursive call of replaceEachRepeatedly
Date Fri, 29 Jul 2011 15:27:10 GMT
Hi Hen,

I am not really comfortable knowing that a SOE can be a "normal" code
path. It would have to be Javadoc'd to boot.

I can see catching IllegalStateException and IllegalArgumentException
in client code, especially in a server or a processor of some kind,
but to do that for SOE feels wrong. An SOE would crash a server based
a client request for example.

I think I'd rather keep the exception. Also I think it should be an
IAE instead of an ISE because the problem is that the arguments are
bad and the SU class does have state.


On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:26 PM, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
> Anyone against just letting users get a StackOverflowError?
> Hen
> On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:42 PM, Henri Yandell <> wrote:
>> I'm wondering what people think to:
>> I've improved the message of the thrown exception to match the
>> javadoc, but I'm wondering if a TTL of 2 to protect a
>> StackOverflowError is really necessary :) I have the urge to throw in
>> 64, or 512, or some random number as a minimum value, but unsure.
>> Alternatively, we could just let the StackOverflowError happen and
>> remove the TTL code.
>> Thoughts?
>> Hen
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

Thank you,

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

View raw message