commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>
Subject Re: [BeanUtils2] Thoughts about the API
Date Mon, 18 Jun 2012 12:19:25 GMT
LOL indeed :)

go for your proposed solution, sounds nice anyway :)

alles gute,
-Simo

http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
http://www.99soft.org/


On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter
<beneritter@googlemail.com> wrote:
> I just realized, that we cannot call a method
> MappedPropertyAccessor.for(String key) - "for" is a reserved keyword
> ;-)
>
> How about:
> MappedPropertyAcessor.forKey(String key) and
> ArgumentsAcessor.with(Argument... Arguments)
>
> Benedikt
>
> 2012/6/16 Simone Tripodi <simonetripodi@apache.org>:
>> +1 to James for both topics,
>>
>> let's start from a basic exception - naming proposals are welcome.
>>
>> I'll create the wiki page later after dinner - that WE is too much
>> sunny to stay at home ;)
>> best,
>> -Simo
>>
>> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/
>> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/
>> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi
>> http://www.99soft.org/
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM, James Carman
>> <james@carmanconsulting.com> wrote:
>>> It shouldn't.  If you're catching the superclass (for instance
>>> BeanUtilsReflectionException) and later we start to throw
>>> BeanUtilsInstantiationException which extends
>>> BeanUtilsReflectionException, I don't think you'll run into problems.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Benedikt Ritter
>>> <beneritter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> 2012/6/15 James Carman <james@carmanconsulting.com>:
>>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Benedikt Ritter
>>>>> <beneritter@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> - Wrapper Exceptions: I thing we should discuss, how a exception
>>>>>> hierarchy could look like. I'll make a suggestion ASAP.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't want to duplicate the hierarchy.  I would say start with a
>>>>> generic exception type for now.  If folks ask for more specific
>>>>> subtypes later, we can add them.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Would adding more specific RuntimeExceptions later break bc? I think
>>>> no, because RuntimeExceptions don't have to be part of the method
>>>> signature. But I'm not sure :-)
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Benedikt
>>>>
>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> 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
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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