harmony-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexei Fedotov <alexei.fedo...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Doubting exception priority compatibility
Date Thu, 19 Nov 2009 14:56:34 GMT
Sorry, as I've said I failed to find an exact example. Maybe because
all exception incompatibilities were fixed early in the project
beginning, or because they really had a small impact.

On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Tim Ellison <t.p.ellison@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
> Regards,
> Tim

With best regards / с наилучшими пожеланиями,
Alexei Fedotov / Алексей Федотов,

View raw message