Berin Loritsch 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.
Berin: Ummm, ok, what your saying is that if there is an existing implementation out there that is configuring things dynamically, and if we add in a configurable instance that throws such an exception, then the existing implementation may break. While I agree that this is true, I think we should recognise that there are already implementation out there that are throwing RuntimeExceptions "because of the absence of a formally declared exception". I.e. adding a RuntimeCascadingException is in practice just documenting what one is forced to do anyway. My preference would be to get the interface right (i.e. add a regular exception) before going to 4.0. Cheers, Steve. > > > > 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] > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
