Leo Simons wrote:
>
> This is on my to-do list (which I've lost =). I agree.
> Since the lifecycle stuff is supposed to be stable, this
> is not something we're allowed to change easily.
> Perhaps we should make a RuntimeCascadingException
> that extends RuntimeException and have ContextException
> extend that to maintain compatibility...would that
> work?
>
> btw, I feel more of the lifecycle methods should throw
> a specific (new) kind of exception, for issues like this.
> Would extending RuntimeException still allow legacy
> code to compile (it should, but I'm not sure)?
It would allow it to compile--the issue is that when the
exception is thrown, it must be caught or the application/
server will die unexpectedly.
>
> cheers,
>
> LSD
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Stephen McConnell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > Sent: Monday, April 09, 2001 2:30 PM
> > To: Avalon Development
> > Subject: RE: Throwing exceptions during contextualization
> >
> >
> >
> > Ricardo:
> >
> > I agree with you suggestion. We have several cases where we are
> > throwing a
> > RuntimeException in order to bypass the interface restrictions. If a
> > ContextException is defined - I would like to see this extends
> > CascadingException.
> >
> > Cheers, Steve.
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ricardo Rocha [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> > > Sent: Monday, 09 April, 2001 07:16
> > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > Subject: Throwing exceptions during contextualization
> > >
> > >
> > > A component implementing Contextualizable may need to assert some
> > > condition(s) on its context and throw an exception if such condition(s)
> > > are not met:
> > >
> > > public class MyComponent implements Contextualizable {
> > > . . .
> > > public void contextualize(Context context) throws ContextException {
> > > this.requiredComponent = context.get("required");
> > > if (this.required == null) {
> > > throw new ContextException("Required component missing
> > > in context");
> > > }
> > > }
> > > . . .
> > > }
> > >
> > > What do you think of creating a new ContextException and have the
> > > contextualize(Context) method throw it?
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > >
> > > Ricardo
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
