Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 52BA1969B for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:55:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 81284 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2011 17:55:52 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-amber-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 81253 invoked by uid 500); 30 Dec 2011 17:55:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact amber-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 81244 invoked by uid 99); 30 Dec 2011 17:55:52 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:55:52 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of lukasz.moren@gmail.com designates 209.85.216.175 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.216.175] (HELO mail-qy0-f175.google.com) (209.85.216.175) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 17:55:45 +0000 Received: by qcqw6 with SMTP id w6so8032036qcq.6 for ; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:55:25 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=BKzhXsFqQ4z28mvqswRWY4JUbKVb4P4Eds33yeKMjwg=; b=hberiQRmbGZABVfeIYw5d+cULQz+269741uVZHiz9XNGdseQ/CC08vhygl40WMWB3e ZjX7FkgtntGYce/CWRxEd9XjnW9z+921hDanmwQRoSa8Glidn0SVgjgGEXTH3x50J/AJ 4QfqhsjXy4p0WLBAam2MlLXnCU+T+V9y5vxys= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.229.76.132 with SMTP id c4mr14499331qck.56.1325267725123; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:55:25 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.229.112.195 with HTTP; Fri, 30 Dec 2011 09:55:25 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <7DC05F0A-F76D-481C-8B68-FB20CF17B136@adobe.com> Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2011 18:55:25 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: OAuthSystemException vs OAuthProblemException From: =?UTF-8?B?xYF1a2FzeiBNb3JlxYQ=?= To: amber-dev@incubator.apache.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=00032555bfa2fd00b104b552ef47 --00032555bfa2fd00b104b552ef47 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 These two exception were designed to use as follows: - OAuthSystemException - critical problem with the Amber library, user is not able to recover from this error - OAuthProblemException - error that regards to OAuth protocol error, which user can handle and recover from it, e.g. obtain new token if OAuthProblemException says: token_expired I agree that OAuthSystemException should be probably runtime. Cheers, Lukasz On Fri, Dec 30, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Raymond Feng wrote: > I agree. At least we should make OAuthSystemException as a runtime > exception. > > Raymond Feng > Sent from my iPhone > > On Dec 30, 2011, at 7:29 AM, Antonio Sanso wrote: > > > Hi *, > > > > I have noticed that a lot of Amber method throws both > OAuthSystemException,OAuthProblemException. > > > > While I understand the use of OAuthProblemException that matches really > well with OAuthResponse I feel a little ackward on catch/use > OAuthSystemException. > > > > I was wondering is it really needed? If yes, which one is the idea > behind? > > > > Thanks in advance > > > > Antonio > --00032555bfa2fd00b104b552ef47--