On Mon, 18 Nov 2002, Mike Bowler wrote:
> > Sure looks to me like it could extend Throwable. > > I have always understood that all Throwables were either application > level (subclasses of Exception) or system level (subclasses of Error). > It makes no sense IMO to subclass Throwable directly as you would be > implying that you had a new category of problem that wasn't an > application issue and wasn't a system issue. It depends on coder preference. I have played with extending Throwable to have a Notification class. I'm usually against turning off functionalities just because the majority-experience doesn't use it. For example, the StringUtils empty constructor argument. Most people make their Utils classes private() by default, but a few people hitting found it very useful to hit that from bean shell/velocity style tools. > Application code should not be throwing or catching Errors so IMO > Nestable should be a subclass of Exception. Because you likely don't > want it to be checked, it would more specifically be a subclass of > RuntimeException. I assume things like Oracle throw Errors in their driver or some such. Unsure. Is Error just for JVM or do some low-level API creators also do that. While a minority, they would still count as customers of commons lang in my view. Hen -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
