Hi,
I've put in the trace using Trc.exception but I'm against propagating it - true they might be unexpected and it might be worth alerting the user, but WSIFServiceFactory.newInstance() will be called by every single client so we need to think carefully about propagating exceptions.
Also, propagating exceptions now results in too much code change - in the dynamic proxy, all the sample clients, etc. which I am not in favor of doing so close to release. I'm sure you'll agree that if at all we think this is good, we should hold off on it until later so as to minimise code changes prior to the RC.
I'm committing the change without propagating the exception now, let's bring this up again when the code "semi-freeze" is no longer in effect!
Nirmal.
| Aleksander Slominski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
12/18/2002 04:11 PM
|
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] cc: Subject: Re: [wsif] Proposed change to WSIF service factory |
Nirmal Mukhi wrote:
> I'll catch the exceptions separately and trace them. However, I think
> the correct behavior is to ignore exceptions,
hi,
do not ignore but maybe log them with Trc.exception()
> since we have a fallback default factory, and users can be informed
> through the trace about the excdeption if they care. The alternative
> is to throw a WSIFException but I don't recall other abstract factory
> implementations (in WSDL4J, JAXP and so on) throwing exceptions from
> newInstance() - that is an unnecessary thing the user would have to
> take care of.
maybe in this case it makes sense to distinguish two types of exceptions:
1. "expected" exception such as ClassNotFound that are logged but
ignored to allow default factory be created
2. other exception: also logged but allowed to propagate
thanks,
alek
