Mailing-List: contact harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (asf.osuosl.org: domain of mloenko@gmail.com designates
 66.249.82.197 as permitted sender)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws;
        s=beta; d=gmail.com;
        h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references;
        b=KJLejfmhKym52BPmtIVkrmr6mF2zkcyM98FdOjOXssYRFJ2zxgXbaHQA7ttb5O5leo2vihId2+2xKhFYIpKqaFSmkWmot3t+LqkFVB+PhjKodVCa+/J8CLVZ3IE/QLnOi7rh0ekUbOZFD+Uj0cU4HiVzHW0oE8D+hlVCADVqmdA=
Message-ID: <906dd82e0607180400y7f508b08j83e1d07cfb8654f9@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 18:00:26 +0700
From: "Mikhail Loenko" <mloenko@gmail.com>
To: harmony-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Solution on Harmony-815 (was Re: [jira] Commented: (HARMONY-815)
 [classlib][nio] Refine implConfigureBlocking(boolean) method of
 DatagramChannel and SocketChannel.)
In-Reply-To: <4d0b24970607180352y3657b4c9of27d2052b433fc56@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <4d0b24970607131957ga194d05p18358f2a1448ddac@mail.gmail.com>
	 <906dd82e0607132141k7224c88kaa0ccc4b4260a292@mail.gmail.com>
	 <5c8e69f0607160640r257ad50aq37f6935859292a8a@mail.gmail.com>
	 <44BB7E04.6080609@gmail.com>
	 <4F12B5A6-0B20-4045-9FD8-AD6925FEB8DC@guglhupf.net>
	 <44BC3DF6.8020306@gmail.com>
	 <f944d83d0607172257s66b5af67hb52ee93a8a9528d0@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970607180352y3657b4c9of27d2052b433fc56@mail.gmail.com>

2006/7/18, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com>:
> Seems most people prefer subclass to SocketException with ErrorCodeException
> cause.
>
> Does anyone prefer the latter? or both are acceptable?
>
> I think we'd better made an agreement about this issue.
>
> Mikhail, how do you think about it? Which one do you prefer? :) I'll fix
> Harmony-815 once decision is made.

both seem ok, no prefs from my side

Thanks,
Mikhail


>
> Thanks!
>
>
> On 7/18/06, Alexey Varlamov <alexey.v.varlamov@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > IMHO, throwing a subclass certainly fits to specification and can
> > hardly break compatibility with RI. I consider this is the proper
> > workaround for now.
> > Just my $0.02 :)
> >
> > --
> > Alexey Varlamov
> > >
> > > In this case, I guess if we set the cause to null when catching the
> > > SocketException will properly solve the problem. However it seems
> > > difficult as Throwable.initCause() can be called only once.
> > >
> > > If throwing a subclass may also break compatibility guideline, I still
> > > suggest return value, though it may break the current
> > > infrastructure(currently, all errors throw exception), it is still easy
> > > to deal with, only some of operation, read/write, require a little
> > > change, and we no longer need "try...catch" in Java code
> > >
> > > BTW, I find the code shall also deal with InterruptIOException.
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Andrew Zhang
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: harmony-dev-unsubscribe@incubator.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: harmony-dev-help@incubator.apache.org