[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13848640#comment-13848640
]
Shant Stepanian commented on VFS-508:
-------------------------------------
Thanks for the reply - agreed on your point on how to frame the discussion
To clarify my original point them - I'd say that if an API method can be
debated on whether it is recoverable or not, I'd say we should default to
runtime exceptions, as it allows flexibility for either case. IMO, for a
framework like VFS that serves as a convenience abstraction for clients, it is
the clients' usage of the API method that would say if an error is recoverable
or not (at least, that has been the case for the APIs that I have used)
For the two examples I gave above (VFS.getManager().resolveFile("myFile") and
FileObject.getChildren()): in my use case, those were not recoverable
exceptions (it was for a utility component, and I was just trying to access a
directory and then read its children; if I could not find it, it was an
erroneous condition). Though maybe the community here ends up viewing these 2
examples as non-recoverable across the board
Look forward to hearing the discussion on this
Thanks,
Shant
> Change FileSystemException to inherit from a RuntimeException, and not
> IOException (patch attached)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: VFS-508
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-508
> Project: Commons VFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Shant Stepanian
> Attachments: changeFileSystemToRuntime.patch
>
>
> I'd like to see if we can FileSystemException to inherit from a
> RuntimeException, and not IOException
> I searched the JIRA and didn't see any old tickets referring to this, so I'll
> bring it up here
> _The reason_
> The reason would go back to the whole "Runtime vs. Checked" exception debate,
> and I do prefer the RuntimeException argument that with those, you have the
> choice on whether to declare the try/catch block upon usage, whereas Checked
> exceptions force that on you
> In particular, I bring this up because I feel it hurts the usability of the
> API to have all operations as a checked exception. I recently looked to
> convert my code from using the regular Java JDK file api to the VFS api, and
> I found that in a number of places, I now have to add a try/catch block to
> handle a checked exception where I previously didn't have to (e.g.
> File.listFiles() vs. FileObject.getChildren(), new File("myFile") vs.
> VFS.getManager().resolveFile("myFile"))
> Having one less impediment to migrate would make it easier to adopt for more
> people. As a frame of reference, Hibernate did make a change like this to
> convert HibernateException from checked to runtime, and it was fine for them
> _Patch and Impact of Change_
> I've attached a patch of the change - you can see it is very small, and the
> code still compiles. I ran a test locally and it failed on some of the
> external-resource-related bits; I can follow up on this, but would like to
> first get your approval on this ticket before proceeding w/ any more work
> In terms of client changes - this would only impact clients that happened to
> explicitly expect an IOException in their catch block, and not directly the
> FileSystemException. (this affected one piece of code within VFS itself, but
> could affect clients).
> But I believe that this still would be a beneficial change, as it would make
> all clients' code cleaner and make it easier to adopt
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.4#6159)
