Peter Donald wrote:
>
> At 10:11 10/4/01 +0200, Leo Simons wrote:
> >proposal:
> >For 4.0 of the framework code, CascadingException
> >is updated to extend RuntimeException,
>
> -1
>
> Whats wrong with CascadingRuntimeException???
>
> >and new exceptions
> >are created for all lifecycle methods except run(), stop()
> >and dispose().
>
> -1 for run
> +1 for stop/start/resume/suspend/etc
> +/-0 for dispose() (it will be ignored anyway)
>
> >
> >So:
> >contextualize() throws ContextualizationException
>
> How about ContextException?
>
> >init() throws InitializationException
>
> how about initialize() throws InitializationException ? ;)
>
Lets avoid verylongandhardtotypeExceptionNames:
ContextException, InitException?
> >For:
> >- making use of RuntimeException means that existing code
> > will be able to compile and run if the exceptions are
> > not actually thrown.
>
> Short term benefit is not worth the long term negative effects IMO
>
> >- since the lifecycle exceptions are indeed (almost
> > always) runtime exceptions, this setup is also
> > correct.
>
> What makes you so sure. I have gone out of my way to make all lifecycle
> exceptions not RuntimeExceptions ;)
I agree with Peter here (I think). If a change needs doing, lets do it
properly first time. Also, lets keep RuntimeExceptions for, well,
Runtime Exceptions!
Charles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
