On Thu, Jun 28, 2001 at 11:06:00AM +0200, Leo Sutic wrote: > > So how about providing, in org.apache.avalon.framework, an ErrorHandler > > interface and DefaultErrorHandler implementation, just like SAX does? > > That way, most people can continue to use Java's built-in exception > > handling, and those who need the extra control can use ErrorHandlers, > > all within the Avalon framework. > > Jeff, > > the problem I see is that you get much stronger coupling between the > component and the composer. In order to recover from an error the > composer/error handler needs to know the state of the component, which is > implementation specific. (And if the error handler can not recover, what's > the point? Then it is just a Logger.)
Yes.. I guess an ErrorHandler interface in Avalon would be way too general. You can only do useful stuff like error recovery in component-specific ErrorHandlers. > I prefer components that expose few methods, do a lot themselves, and raise > exceptions when they simply can not proceed. I also prefer that, but there's situations which genuinely need extra flexibility. > Adding error handlers to each component increases complexity and leads > to the hyperflexibility syndrome, IMO. As Pete amply demonstrated in his mail.. > That said, I believe that some components may benefit from using the > Strategy pattern (provide an object the component can call for further > orders), like the Pool/PoolController in Excalibur. However, I do not think > that this needs to be done all across Avalon/Excalibur. I'll have to look into that.. I guess there's a bigger issue of composer/component communication. Thanks for the reply:) --Jeff > /LS --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
