Mailing-List: contact dev-help@harmony.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (herse.apache.org: domain of alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com
 designates 66.249.92.172 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=nBzwCT8OrODPTLjAC8kxEqc2MupF1x7nph3x3mY+HXgMWXSqrt6+5bf1ZADj1FauR1C2VKuE92ILznP/Cw1lBlg/fSDTNnnLr8wQl5WQgvjTuSPVERPykvXi3ccbaF57FCjQi4Np8kwd9E2vpMoNodRlC1cvZu5LvnaRL/baRHc=
Message-ID: <c3755b3a0612250233k2d581edchdaf969cf0be337cb@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2006 13:33:33 +0300
From: "Alexey Petrenko" <alexey.a.petrenko@gmail.com>
To: dev@harmony.apache.org
Subject: Re: [general]what do you think about this kind of exception order?
In-Reply-To: <211709bc0612222103m6eb0bd9bmf8b50c23281786e0@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
References: <211709bc0612220852i5f9e535dkf9a74ab719bb3ece@mail.gmail.com>
	 <4d0b24970612221920l303dee2cua45cc1efa87d13f3@mail.gmail.com>
	 <211709bc0612222103m6eb0bd9bmf8b50c23281786e0@mail.gmail.com>

I think that exception order not so important. And if the order change
will give us performance boost then let's change it!

2006/12/23, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com>:
> Hi Andrew,
> Thanks for your advice: )
>
> Yes, it is impl detail, but this is one kind of problem. Thus I yelled
> here for getting an agreement to deal with similar problems.
>
> I do incline to follow RI in normal case if possible, but harmony's
> impl is better here.
> I wonder is it worth doing this trade-off?
>
> On 12/23/06, Andrew Zhang <zhanghuangzhu@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/23/06, Tony Wu <wuyuehao@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > There are two methods, which throw exceptions in different order.
> > >
> > > public test1(int a, int b){
> > >    if(a>b){
> > >        throw AException();
> > >    }
> > >    synchronized(obj){
> > >       if(blabla){
> > >           throw BException();
> > >       }
> > >   }
> > > }
> > >
> > > public test2(int a, int b){
> > >   synchronized(obj){
> > >       if(blabla){
> > >           throw BException();
> > >       }
> > >       if(a>b){
> > >           throw AException();
> > >       }
> > >   }
> > > }
> > >
> > >
> > > test1 checks the parameters before entering the synchronized block, It
> > > returns immediately instead of waiting for a lock in the condition
> > > which should throw AException. IMHO, test1 is more elegant. The
> > > problem is, if RI do something like the test2 where harmony using
> > > test1, should we follow RI here? What's your opinion?
> >
> >
> > I think it's implementation detail, and I vote for following RI if possible.
> >
> > We may discuss specific case one by one. :)
> >
> > Thanks.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Tony Wu
> > > China Software Development Lab, IBM
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Andrew Zhang
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Tony Wu
> China Software Development Lab, IBM
>