Mailing-List: contact dev-help@lucene.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@lucene.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of uwe@thetaphi.de designates
 188.138.97.18 as permitted sender)
From: "Uwe Schindler" <uwe@thetaphi.de>
To: <dev@lucene.apache.org>
References: <33728146.48.1333046037570.JavaMail.hudson@aegis>
 <CAL8PwkaSLr42bxDFcRfJ4qP4-DarxUfXxCQ01PW_7QXyBHGeQA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL8PwkZx-V31oqUH99=hA3DbhiNgtYoXn7nAEY3OEE2h02bTvA@mail.gmail.com>
 <00cd01cd0de0$46a70a00$d3f51e00$@thetaphi.de>
 <CAM21Rt86HARD_V_Q=bL=AziJp07qMG-y20qgDAqpeRsJ+snJcQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAM21Rt86HARD_V_Q=bL=AziJp07qMG-y20qgDAqpeRsJ+snJcQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: RE: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 12908 - Failure
Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2012 22:37:57 +0200
Message-ID: <00cf01cd0deb$d36a09f0$7a3e1dd0$@thetaphi.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thread-Index: AQK8aS3UzcP2GpDTcH6+x5nzKd+MigKVzhbTAggP+zEBioEx2wKJKh/alF125XA=
Content-Language: de

I know. The VM specification does not even need to know the Exception =
type. If you trick the Java compiler by generics to think the method =
cannot throw the exception it will simply compile the code. If the =
Exception that is thrown is checked that does not matter, the VM will =
bubble up until someone catches.

The only known other sneaky way is this:

static void sneakyThrow(Throwable t) {
  Thread.currentThread().stop(t);
}

But less cool, I agree. The third way is our all fried sun.misc.Unsafe:

Unsafe.theUnsafe.throwException(...)

(needs reflections, as always). Much more uncool.

-----
Uwe Schindler
H.-H.-Meier-Allee 63, D-28213 Bremen
http://www.thetaphi.de
eMail: uwe@thetaphi.de


> -----Original Message-----
> From: dawid.weiss@gmail.com [mailto:dawid.weiss@gmail.com] On Behalf =
Of
> Dawid Weiss
> Sent: Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:21 PM
> To: dev@lucene.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [JENKINS] Lucene-Solr-tests-only-3.x - Build # 12908 - =
Failure
>=20
> bq. Exploits a weakness in the runtime to throw an arbitrary throwable =
without
> the traditional declaration.
>=20
> This is hardly a weakness; it's part of the JVM spec (or rather: the =
distinction of
> checked/ unchecked is part of the Java specification not the JVM =
specification).
>=20
> > But it's in my opinion a generics bug in combination with
> > suppresswarnings
>=20
> It's an exploit of how generics are (under)specified. Many people =
think checked
> exceptions are actually a stupid invention, I think it's debatable, =
some of them
> are really annoying...
>=20
> Dawid
>=20
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org For =
additional
> commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@lucene.apache.org