river-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Palash Ray <paa...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Using an unchecked exception instead of RemoteException
Date Fri, 12 Jun 2015 03:29:53 GMT
My two cents:
I am in favour of having runtime exception. We are facing a huge problem as
our code base is too cluttered with this kind of code:

} catch (RemoteException e){


On Thu, Jun 11, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Dawid Loubser <dawid@travellinck.com>

> On 11/06/2015 16:24, Greg Trasuk wrote:
> >>  * It's perfectly fine to still enforce service implementations to
> >>    declare RemoteException, as a "tag" / "reminder", but honestly, it's
> >>    not the client's concern. Depending on the reliability requirements
> >>    of the client, they need to handle unexpected failure in anyway, and
> >>    RemoteException is functionally no different than, say, a
> NullPointer.
> > I disagree.  In my experience, communications exceptions need to be
> carefully considered by the service consumer.
> Doesn't that effectively leave only two options?
>   * Remote services can only implement, and be called via, contracts
>     that were designed at the time that I decided this will be a remote
>     service. No re-purposing or adapting of existing functionality to,
>     say, a new remote service. (i.e. I used to call a local database,
>     now I'm going to call a Jini service).
>   * "Just in case", make all methods on all contracts ever throw
>     RemoteException - although some frameworks like EJB 3.x won't like
>     that for certain types of services. Applying something to
>     everything, and to nothing, are semantically equivalent.
> Interfaces are supposed to promote plug-ability, right? I agree that
> remote services are a leaky abstraction. Furthermore, Java's limited
> type system does not give us elegant ways to re-use, say, the "business
> semantics" of an interface in different contexts (such as, one that make
> remote method calls). Because of this, I personally would rather have
> the ability to strongly re-use interfaces in all contexts, across all
> implementation technologies, where possible.
> If, at a given level of granularity, we strictly apply the semantic that
> checked exceptions are for *service refusal* (precondition not met), and
> RuntimeException and Error for *syst**em failure* (postcondition not
> met, not caller's fault), things are a whole lot simpler in my opinion
> and experience.
> Anyway, this has just been a big pain point for me all these years with
> Jini/River. It has nothing to do with the "fallacies of distributed
> computing", and everything with re-use, and the separation of
> functionality from implementation technology in Java interfaces.
> If it were up to me, I would introduce an "UnexpectedRemoteException"
> and/or "UnexpectedIOException" which both extend RuntimeException, and
> which are understood by River components in addition to the usual
> checked [Remote/IO]Exception - which, by defintion, is "expected". Then,
> instead of arguing about one solution for an opinionated framework, the
> users of the framework can choose, experiment, etc. I feel that River,
> as infrastructure, should impede as little as possible, and a checked
> RuntimeException is demonstrably limiting to e.g. interface re-use.
> warm regards,
> Dawid Loubser

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message