2015-06-23 18:08 GMT+02:00 sebb <seb...@gmail.com>: > On 23 June 2015 at 08:54, Kristian Rosenvold > <kristian.rosenv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I think I'll go for the release-notes approach; given that we can find an > > appropriate technical solution. > > > > Right now I'm leaning towards simply changing the contract regarding > > "close" to always throw its own instance of IOException, with a second > > constructor for those wanting fine grained control. If one of the > existing > > constructors is used, simply use a new IOException(). > > I don't think that is appropriate for the ctor which takes an IOE. > That should use an exception of the same class as the parameter, and > not force the use of an actual IOE. >
But we won't know how to construct any arbitrary subclass of an IOE ? Kristian