Stefan Bodewig wrote: > > Peter Donald <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > what if we extended BuildListener so that it had the callbacks > > > > void taskFailed( BuildException be ); > > void taskError( Throwable t ); > > Yep, much less cumbersome than checking for a thrown exception in > buildFinished. +1 > > > Now the default implementation would just rethrow the exception and > > thinks would operate 100% like they do now but other implementations > > could choose to "consume" the error and keep going on. Just a > > thought - thoughts ? > > Sounds OK to me. > > Not exactly the type of functionality one would expect from a pure > Listener, but as we move towards a "FrontEnd" or something this seems > the appropriate place.
It's not without precedent. For example, VetoablePropertyChangeListener can throw a VetoException which requires that object firing the event change its behavior. Louis -- <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> Louis Tribble [EMAIL PROTECTED] Metamata, Inc. http://www.metamata.com Tools for serious Java developers. +1 510 796 0915 <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
