Howdy, Long message, short comments: - A runtime exception, yes, not a checked exception.
- Good to have for release 1.0: you wouldn't want to introduce this kind of behavior change from 1.0 to 1.1. - Why subclassing a commons-lang exception as opposed to the normal java RuntimeException? For pre-JDK 1.4 nesting compatability? Yoav Shapira Millennium ChemInformatics >-----Original Message----- >From: Eric Pugh [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 6:51 AM >To: Commons-Dev (E-mail) >Subject: [Configuration] Throws ConfigurationException? > >Hi all, > >A while ago we discussed 1.0 requirements that are left. And at this >point, >all have been finished except changing the api to throw a >ConfigurationException. > >Now, I am thinking about how to implement this, and am not too keen on the >idea of ConfigurationException being a non runtime explicit Exception. >Primarily because I expect Configuration to always work, and so when I say: > > String s = Configuration.getString("my.string"); > >I don't want to be surrounding it with try/catch for >ConfigurationException. >Indeed, I know what will happen, it will join the other methods that all >throw Exception because if a ConfigurationException happens, there is no >way >for me to deal with it, except by crashing out the app! > >So, if we want a ConfigurationException, why don't we make it a extension >of >NestableRuntimeException (from commons-lang) and declare that we throw >that? > >Or, if we aren't really sure what the Exception handling of the 1.0 version >should be, then skip it (since what we have is "good enuf"), and move to a >release of 1.0 so we can really think about what we want. > >I think just throwing a ConfigurationException on everything that is >explicit is going to make the API harder to use and force bigger changes on >everybodies code that wants to use it. > > >Just one more thing.. Having said that about ConfigurationException, I was >looking at the ConfigurationFactory and the getConfiguration() method >throws >an Exception. It really should throw a ConfigurationException that extends >NestableException, and then maybe we have ConfigurationException extends >NestableException and ConfigurationRuntimeException extends >NestableRuntimeException? > >I really want to get to the 1.0 release of Configuration soon, especially >now that we have a database backed exceptions plus all the goodies in >ConfigurationFactory! > >Eric > > >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] This e-mail, including any attachments, is a confidential business communication, and may contain information that is confidential, proprietary and/or privileged. This e-mail is intended only for the individual(s) to whom it is addressed, and may not be saved, copied, printed, disclosed or used by anyone else. If you are not the(an) intended recipient, please immediately delete this e-mail from your computer system and notify the sender. Thank you. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
