continuum-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rahul Thakur <>
Subject Re: refactoring the SCM
Date Wed, 07 May 2008 01:19:58 GMT

The motivation behind this was that layer/module should (ideally) expose 
limited number of granular exception(s). Having said that, I agree 
wrapping-unwrapping exceptions can get clunky and contract definition 
should be merited by the exception handling instances that we have 
observed in the code.

I wasn't referring to nesting exceptions (may be wrong use of 'wrap'), 
but unifying the hierarchy of ScmExceptions, so clients can introspect 
using 'instanceof' to determine specific ones.


Brett Porter wrote:
> On 07/05/2008, at 10:27 AM, Rahul Thakur wrote:
>> Cool! :)
>> Just one note on exceptions - Can we wrap up all the SCM exceptions
>> under one parent which is then exposed through the ContinuumScm API?
>> Clients that need to do any special handling can introspect the
>> extension.
>> WDYT?
> One of the problems in the code that was just removed was that some
> exceptions were getting swallowed or handled in the wrong place because
> it was trying to introspect a nested exception.
> I don't really think wrapping an exception without adding any
> information, only to unwrap it later makes much sense.
> I think the caller should be able to deal with the Maven SCM exceptions,
> and the IOException resulting from passing a bad working directory.
> On the other hand, we don't really want to change interfaces in the
> future, and a wrapped exception does provide that flexibility like the
> request parameter does.
> What do others think?
> - Brett
> --
> Brett Porter

View raw message