On 08/04/2009, Andre Dantas Rocha <andre.dantas.ro...@uol.com.br> wrote:
> Jorg,
>
> I don't agree with this point at all: "having a method call in a catch block
>
> is
> likely to cause problems for code analysis tools - as well as humans -
> as one cannot immediately tell if the code continues or not"
>
>
> I believe it is possible to know if the code continues or not, for example,
> if you rethrow the exception at the end of handle() method. Reading your
> message, however, I realized that it is a good idea to make handle() method
> works more safely allowing it to throw original exception in case of error
> inside it.
So does the following code continue or not?
try {
doSomethingRisky();
catch(Exception e){
handleException(e);
}
And how can you be sure?
> Andre
>
> -----Mensagem original-----
> De: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com]
> Enviada em: quarta-feira, 8 de abril de 2009 07:21
>
> Para: Commons Developers List
> Assunto: Re: Possible incubation?
>
>
> On 08/04/2009, Jörg Schaible <joerg.schai...@gmx.de> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I wondered about that. Also, having a method call in a catch block is
> likely to cause problems for code analysis tools - as well as humans -
> as one cannot immediately tell if the code continues or not.
>
> Now, having a way to perform the same code for multiple exceptions
> would sometimes be useful. Dunno whether that could be implemented.
>
> > - 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
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
