FWIW, I think UOE is clearly the right exception for a method that is unsupported. An IOExeption is very much associated with the actual IO system. Stephen
On 20 February 2015 at 21:06, Martin Buchholz <marti...@google.com> wrote: > I totally disagree about "recoverable condition". Instead of thinking > about "recovering", think instead about whether it ever makes sense to > catch the resulting exception. See my sample code broken by the switch to > UOE. > > On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 11:58 AM, Roger Riggs <roger.ri...@oracle.com> > wrote: > >> Hi Martin, >> >> As I said earlier, launching a Process when process is not implemented >> is not a recoverable condition; there are no conditions under which it will >> succeed. If the application is probing to determine what >> is supported on a platform then it should be prepared to handle UOE >> or using a test for the specific capability it requires. >> >> Roger >> >> >> >> On 2/20/2015 1:34 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote: >> >>> One reason I keep pouring salt on this tiny wound is that throwing >>> (unchecked) UOE for system-dependent failures when normally IOE is thrown >>> is a fundamental design mistake for java and its checked exception design. >>> I think it violates Josh's Effective Java Item 58: Use checked exceptions >>> for recoverable conditions and runtime exceptions for programming errors. >>> I don't think it's worth fixing places in jdk8 where this small mistake >>> was >>> made, but we can at least stop the incompatible worsening of existing >>> APIs. >>> >>> On Fri, Feb 20, 2015 at 3:49 AM, Alan Bateman <alan.bate...@oracle.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> On 19/02/2015 21:54, Jason Mehrens wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm assuming that compatibility is given more weight vs. correcting >>>>> choices made in the original design. >>>>> >>>>> Yes, I think we've spent more than enough time on it. In this case >>>>> it's >>>>> >>>> for a major release only and the compatibility impact seems to be only >>>> platforms or implementations that don't support launching of processes >>>> today but are running applications that attempt to start processes >>>> anyway. >>>> So overall it doesn't seem to be something to be overly concerned with. >>>> >>>> -Alan >>>> >>>> >>
