I think it's more valid to look at Jeha as a framework that only handles what you ask to handle. In the case you describe, if you don't ask Jeha to handle a certain type of exception, then that exception is simply propagated up the stack. I don't think it interferes with the method signature, unless i'm missing something.
Gaurav > Hi Andre, > > Andre Dantas Rocha wrote at Dienstag, 7. April 2009 14:38: > >> Hi all, >> >> This message was originally sent to incubator list, but they suggest to >> post it here because *maybe* the idea can fit in Commons project. >> >> I'm developing a framework called Jeha. The main idea is to provide easy >> exception description and handling using annotations in methods and >> classes >> and some commons handlers. I believe that the idea is simple, but >> powerful. >> >> The initial code and start guide of framework are here: >> > <http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203&package_id=294 >> 931&release_id=650572> >> > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203&package_id=2949 >> 31&release_id=650572 >> >> I'd like to hear from community if this idea is valuable for a possible >> incubation. >> >> Please let me know your opinion. > > It might be only me, but I see this approach a bit critical. On one hand > you're right, writing exception code is quite tedious sometimes, but with > your solution you wipe out any useful method signature regarding exception > declaration. What happens if I don't wanna handle certain exception types > or RuntimeException instances? I cannot simply rethrow from the handler. > > - Jörg > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
