Reinhard P�tz wrote:
Nicola Ken Barozzi wrote:
Ugo Cei wrote:
I think everyone interested has had the option of venting his opinion on the subject of checked vs. unchecked exceptions. For the record, here [1] is the relevant thread.
In order to move forward, I propose to reparent the org.apache.cocoon.ProcessingException to extend org.apache.avalon.framework.CascadingRuntimeException instead of CascadingException.
The change is backward-compatible and is a one-line change that can be reverted easily, but might have implications on the way we manage exceptions in the future.
I've already performed the change locally and everything compiles. Tests fail, but they failed also before the change :-(.
So, please cast your votes.
-1
Nicola, could you summarize the reasons for your -1?
(... I haven't followed the previous discussion on exceptions very closely, so pls forgive if you already pointed out your concerns)
Nicola can speak for himself I suppose...
however, reading his answer again in the previous thread: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=xml-cocoon-dev&m=108196560613519&w=2
...I find some recognisable motivation for my personal under-enthousiasm on this topic
What I personally catched from the previous thread was (besides some fond memories of C++) some tendency towards a more nuanced view saying we should be cautious with checked exceptions and carefully decide when and where to introduce them. (by considering both sides of the contract that defines them?)
I grade my personal under-enthousiasm to the level of "indifference", leading me to a neutral 0-vote: a free ticket to those that are enthousiast :-)
For sure a set of more balanced considerations on the interfaces at hand (rather then a generalizing reaction triggered by some modern reactionary movement) would of have easily catched my enthousiasm...
regards, -marc= -- Marc Portier http://outerthought.org/ Outerthought - Open Source, Java & XML Competence Support Center Read my weblog at http://blogs.cocoondev.org/mpo/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
