harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Doubting exception priority compatibility
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:38:27 GMT
On 18/Nov/2009 18:15, Jesse Wilson wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Being consistent on checked exceptions like IOException is still
>> beneficial,
>> and we should continue to maintain our current behaviour.
>> Being consistent ... on throwing priority?  So you are suggesting that
>> we continue to enforce priority order for multiple errors resulting in
>> exceptions outside the set above?
>> Just trying to understand precisely what you are proposing.
> My focusing on a specific set of exceptions makes more complicated than
> necessary; sorry about that. Ultimately I agree with the RI's decision that
> it is bogus to either specify or enforce a particular exception priority.

Shame, I thought you had something there, because I wonder about the
problems that may ensue if we allow the order of checked/unchecked
exceptions to change.

For example, consider a stream's "read(buffer) throws IOException"
method.  By definition the application code will have decided on some
way to handle the IOException.

However, if there are multiple pre-condition errors such as the read()
being invoked on a closed stream, and the user passing in a null buffer.
 The user code may very well care that the IOException is thrown early,
and handled, before the NullPointerException is thrown, and possibly
causing a crash.


View raw message