commons-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Steve Gillam (JIRA)" <>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (LANG-769) Please restore NotImplementedException and UnhandledException
Date Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:12:12 GMT


Steve Gillam commented on LANG-769:

"no clear criteria as to which semantically rich description should be there and which shouldn't"
- admit there is little distinction between the two but one of them should be. Or is it that
'without any clear criteria as to which semantically rich descriptions' are missing we won't
add 'any'? (this could be said of any item within commons-lang(3) - if you disregard the argument
'because people want/use it').

'net searches reveal many patterns where a 'NotImplemented' semantic is useful with no apparent
supplier in the standard JDK - presumably hence its (ex)presence in commons-lang.

One such pattern (beefing up the 'because it's needed' criteria) is to systematize ignoring
(via assumeException(...)) of developed (ie. not @Ignore'd) test/src/java/* test cases where
some aspect of that test's implementation (movable as development progresses) throws NotImplementedException
in main/src/java/*

As it is I'm having to utilise commons-lang 2.4 (as use other commons-lang goodies and frustrated
that can't just bring in latest version)
> Please restore NotImplementedException and UnhandledException
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>                 Key: LANG-769
>                 URL:
>             Project: Commons Lang
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: lang.exception.*
>            Reporter: david cogen
>            Priority: Minor
> Why were these removed? I found these very useful and used them often. As the version
2.6 api javadoc states, "This exception supplements the standard exception classes by providing
a more semantically rich description of the problem."
> Just want you to realize that these have found direct use outside the library; not just
internal use within commons-lang.
> I will define these missing classes myself, or maybe include both commons-lang and commons-lang3
(but I really don't to do that). It would be very nice to have these back.

This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators
For more information on JIRA, see:

View raw message