Return-Path: X-Original-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Delivered-To: archive-asf-public-internal@cust-asf2.ponee.io Received: from cust-asf.ponee.io (cust-asf.ponee.io [163.172.22.183]) by cust-asf2.ponee.io (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42E27200B27 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:40:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) id 415B2160A4F; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Delivered-To: archive-asf-public@cust-asf.ponee.io Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by cust-asf.ponee.io (Postfix) with SMTP id 880FC160A36 for ; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 00:40:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: (qmail 18463 invoked by uid 500); 7 Jun 2016 22:40:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@reef.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@reef.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@reef.apache.org Received: (qmail 18451 invoked by uid 99); 7 Jun 2016 22:40:53 -0000 Received: from pnap-us-west-generic-nat.apache.org (HELO spamd4-us-west.apache.org) (209.188.14.142) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:40:53 +0000 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by spamd4-us-west.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at spamd4-us-west.apache.org) with ESMTP id B4E40C0D08 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:40:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at spamd4-us-west.apache.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -0.72 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.72 tagged_above=-999 required=6.31 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01] autolearn=disabled Authentication-Results: spamd4-us-west.apache.org (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=weimo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com Received: from mx1-lw-us.apache.org ([10.40.0.8]) by localhost (spamd4-us-west.apache.org [10.40.0.11]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l0f1oNz_Wi4D for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-pa0-f49.google.com (mail-pa0-f49.google.com [209.85.220.49]) by mx1-lw-us.apache.org (ASF Mail Server at mx1-lw-us.apache.org) with ESMTPS id 8504F5F1E5 for ; Tue, 7 Jun 2016 22:40:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pa0-f49.google.com with SMTP id bz2so49916007pad.1 for ; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:40:51 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=weimo-de.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iJttWRW3FFb3TY6jb59m2Ods48CBARxzjNn3Ozb2Px0=; b=kXzAp0mUx+7rTN5+x1Zo16FfQpzKKBiRETXdUqX/eM4OkTUE6r4IQR+RxhCGSVLE9x etO8Qkm0pEQZhBx+7U1A5Rey5BxV3cTPBqip+C9M1Ijq+/JOS006sfv4+HGSCj76xRfu pMkrilHcj1bQKiAD0YZnQkBmE+GZykKrU6SlmawLX1LPohHFIoxrH3lCW9sss8kQIzxL ehboOR2RVRzOr3KGif/auS71J8LFoO0Arp5vJGztw/Xr5VbwfXViS0QNDIz7bRVormjN AVDLU6wyrqqG4mcsLzna5H3iiKMaZLtUHwYh5q5oYnKKwdPm5AkdqRsvceR8Q19BUU6k r0QA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=iJttWRW3FFb3TY6jb59m2Ods48CBARxzjNn3Ozb2Px0=; b=D7ienS3eihGizVR/jw/Jsmr7nd9GT4NDlZAywexGsmL8KAXRjh4ktm7k9XB5Wunef2 r93p6J3Ag51DYwl76+n88ioEEkOidgSwQXPNAhyb7dp2XyuB93KePU0tuqCMf4ITq7R4 NIAoExdQmJWeMPKgGzPE58bVlX7kbyaLcBDH0aMrp+Iw0l2+wLlMlak1rcJHmxlvziZA 08SR45CDhllcpaoIe9Z1TJKkhA7oIGdpjaKnsBmW/XM3luFDzxEnlQL/AHyP9n8ArfNv drZ7zkfnP7058/QSvMD+wrCore/mDAhun19gsqAKnIljfP8GCxCicq1jO3H/G0gGz0EA OLHw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tKal/9VSenjUROpUxCvpqxcPG3MUHrVwjcmbVBlCr7BA2o0dVD9vcHGpwDySkemOg== X-Received: by 10.66.159.102 with SMTP id xb6mr1889930pab.73.1465339243619; Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:40:43 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2001:4898:f0:52:9d56:da59:7b5e:6f43? ([2001:4898:80e8:5::127]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id f66sm37645178pfj.28.2016.06.07.15.40.42 for (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 07 Jun 2016 15:40:42 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Deprecate Exceptions.Throw? To: dev@reef.apache.org References: <34289ff3-ddf2-483a-19c9-e759b3eb4515@weimo.de> <30295cc1-3fcc-9b22-8c0f-a852f2b1336d@weimo.de> <10df2742-6522-9307-6897-4cc119fbe1dd@weimo.de> <575598BB.80101@weimo.de> <99964e0c-c525-95b4-56de-3a468cd48368@weimo.de> <41c174b4-0653-5a10-2917-0a97f4958e7f@weimo.de> From: Markus Weimer Message-ID: Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 15:40:42 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.1.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit archived-at: Tue, 07 Jun 2016 22:40:55 -0000 On 2016-06-07 3:29 PM, Dhruv Mahajan wrote: > Just to be clear, are we saying that we are deprecating > Exception.Throw and Exceptions.CatchAndThrow? I am advocating to deprecate the whole class. Once we have consensus on that. I was specifically referring to the case you mentioned: On 2016-06-07 2:43 PM, Dhruv Mahajan wrote: > It is caught and thrown but the whole stack trace is lost. Can > somebody confirm that? By changes in evaluator I meant that stack > trace should also be shown. This happens when the Evaluator catches an Exception and then exits, right? Erasing the stack trace at that time is indeed bad form and should be fixed. That is what I meant with catch and throw which should be avoided. Markus