Given JEXL usage - aka embedded in something else-, Runtime exceptions are easier to work with and give more choice. JexlException and UnifiedJEXL.Exception are already Runtime exceptions and are sufficient; having a checked Exception for parsing does not bring any value and was inconsistent with the approach of having a minimal footprint.
As for the process itself, it just seemed given the size of the JEXL community that such a change would not foster much interest as a discussion (using JEXL-61 as an example-). My bad. I'll soon try to cut the RC1 so if you've got any (other) strong concerns about what has been done so far, please tell me now. sebb-2-2 wrote: > > On 12/11/2009, hen...@apache.org <hen...@apache.org> wrote: >> Author: henrib >> Date: Thu Nov 12 17:22:06 2009 >> New Revision: 835458 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=835458&view=rev >> Log: >> Changed exception handling; ParseException is no longer exposed through >> public APIs, only JexlException and UnifiedJEXL.Exception are used, the >> API now only uses unchecked exceptions. > > What's the rationale for this change? > > It may be a good idea (or it may not); either way I think it should > have been discussed on the dev list first and/or via a JIRA > enhancement request. > > S/// > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/svn-commit%3A-r835458---in--commons-proper-jexl-trunk%3A-src-main-java-org-apache-commons-jexl--src-main-java-org-apache-commons-jexl-scripting--src-test-java-org-apache-commons-jexl--xdocs--tp26322698p26325285.html Sent from the Commons - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
