Well, what does the [lang] "team" think about this approach (just letting Class.forName() throw the ClassNotFoundException)? Does this work for you guys? I have added a patch to issue 36512 which includes code to implement it this way (my latest patch). Are there any votes against this method being implemented this way? If not, do you guys care if I go ahead and commit it (I'll wait a while for votes)? Since I'm not a "normal" [lang] committer, I don't want to step on anyone's toes.
-----Original Message----- From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:04 AM To: Jakarta Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [lang] enhanced version of Class.forName James Carman wrote: > Do you think we need to go through the trouble of throwing an > IllegalArgumentException if it's not a well-formed class name (starts with > character, blah blah blah)? Or, can we just let it throw a > ClassNotFoundException after doing as much as we can with the string that's > passed in (i.e. transforming it into the proper format)? I was going to make this suggestion, that seems good enough to me. Emmanuel Bourg --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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]
