Le 2015-12-23 01:41, Gilles a écrit :
On Tue, 22 Dec 2015 13:17:16 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
On 12/22/2015 11:46 AM, Gilles wrote:
Hi.
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 22:44:16 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
On 12/21/2015 06:44 PM, Gilles wrote:
On Mon, 21 Dec 2015 12:14:16 -0600, Ole Ersoy wrote:
Hi,
I was considering jumping into the JDKRandomGenerator exception
discussion, but I did not want to hijack it.
Not sure if any of you have had a chance to looks at this:
https://github.com/firefly-math/firefly-math-exceptions/
https://github.com/firefly-math/firefly-math-exceptions/blob/master/src/main/java/com/fireflysemantics/math/exception/MathException.java
[...]
But I did not see how localization is handled.
I did leave localization out. I think localization was a hard
requirement in earlier versions of CM, but I'm hoping that there is
some flexibility on this
There was not, since I argued many times to leave it out.
So unless you can show practically how it can work, I have my doubts
that we'll be allowed to go forward with this approach.
and that future versions can defer to a
utility that uses the ExceptionTypes Enum instance as the key to
look
up the internationalized template string.
Looks good. Where is the code? ;-)
So CM clients would:
catch(MathException e) {
String exceptionTemplate =
ResourceBundle.getBundle("cm.exception.templates", new Locale("en",
"US")).getString(e.getType());
String i18Nmessage = buildMessage(exceptionTemplate,
e.getContext());
...
}
I can prototype that out more. Just trying to get a feel for how
viable the concept is first.
I'm not sure I understand correctly.
Does that mean that
1. Uncaught exceptions will lead to a message in English?
2. Every "catch" must repeat the same calls (although the arguments are
likely
to be the same for all clauses (and for all applications)?
Comparing this with the current behaviour (where the translated message
String
is created when "e.getLocalizedMessage()" is called) is likely to make
people
unhappy.
This could be made simpler with some task delegating between user code
and CM code.
What about :
interface ExceptionLocalizer {
/** Localize an exception message.
* @param locale locale to use
* @param me exception to localize
* @return localized message for the exception
*/
String localize(Locale locale, MathException me);
}
and having ExceptionFactory hold a user-provided implementation of this
interface?
public class ExceptionFactory {
private static ExceptionLocalizer localizer = new NoOpLocalizer();
public static setLocalizer(ExceptionLocalizer l) {
localizer = l;
}
public static String localize(Locale locale, MathException me) {
return localizer.localize(locale, me);
}
/** Default implementation of the localizer that does nothing. */
private static class NoOpLocalizer implements ExceptionLocalizer {
/** {@inheritDoc} */
@Override
public String localize(MathException me) {
return me.getMessage();
}
}
}
and MathException could implement both getLocalizedMessage() and
even getMessage(Locale) by delegating to the user code:
public class MathException {
public String getLocalizedMessage() {
return ExceptionFactory.localize(Locale.getDefault(), this);
}
public String getMessage(Locale locale) {
return ExceptionFactory.localize(locale, this);
}
...
}
One thing that would be nice would be that in addition to the get
method,
MathException also provides a getKeys to retrieve all keys and a getType
to retrieve the type. The later correspond to the getPatern (or
getLocalizable)
I asked for a few years ago in ExceptionContext. The point for these
methods
is that if we provide users a way to retrieve the parameters that were
used
in the exception construction, then we can delegate localization to
users
as they can do their own code that will rebuild a complete meaasage as
they
want. When you have only the keys and they have reused names like
OPERATOR
or VECTOR, it can't be delegated.
Note that this is independent of the fact there is one or several
hierarchies.
If there are several ones, the two one-liners above must simply be
copied
(yeah, code duplication, I know).
I think it satisfies everyone's requirements with:
- A single MathException (No hierarchy)
That would not satisfy everyone. :-!
- The ExceptionTypes Enum contains all the exception types
- The ExceptionTypes Enum 'key' maps to the corresponding message
1 to 1
- The ExceptionFactory (Utility) throws exceptions, if necessary,
that have always have a single unique root cause, such as NPEs
I was wondering whether the "factory" idea could indeed satisfy
everyone.
Rather than throwing the non-standard "MathException", the factory
would
generate one of the standard exceptions, constructed with the
internal
"MathException" as its cause:
I think it's good that CM throws CM specific exceptions. This way
when I write the handler I can know that the exception is CM
specific
without having to unwrap it.
But if there are several CM exceptions hierarchies, the handler will
have
to check for every base type, leading to more code.
True dat - but if there are no CM exception hierarchies then they
don't :).
I'd be interested in settling the matter of whether we must use a
single
hierarchy because of technical limitations, or if it is a good solution
on its own, i.e. extending standard exceptions is not a better practice
after all.
We could provide a utility:
public boolean isMathException(RuntimeException e) {
if (e instanceof MathException) {
return true;
}
final Throwable t = e.getCause();
if (t != null) {
if (e instanceof MathException) {
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
Or just not wrap.
Of course, but choosing one or the other is not a technical problem;
it's design decision. Do we have arguments (or reference to them)?
public class ExceptionFactory {
public static void throwIllegalArgumentException(MathException e)
{
throw new IllegalArgumentException(e);
}
public static void throwNullPointerException(MathException e) {
throw new NullPointerException(e);
}
// And so on...
}
So, CM code would be
public class Algo {
public void evaluate(double value) {
// Check precondition.
final double min = computeMin();
if (value < min) {
final MathException e = new
MathException(NUMBER_TOO_SMALL).put(CONSTRAINT, min).put(VALUE,
value);
ExceptionFactory.throwIllegalArgumentException(e);
}
// Precondition OK.
}
}
Another thing that I hinted to is that the the factory builds in the
precondition check in the throw method. So that the line:
if (value < min) {
can be nixed.
It seems nice to ensure that the exception raised is consistent with
the
checked condition.
That's the idea.
OK, but do you foresee that all precondition checks will be handle by
factory methods.
It would not be so nice to have explicit checks sprinkled here and
there.
Then, a factory method like
throwNotStrictlyPositiveException(Number value, String key)
should probably be renamed to
checkNotStrictlyPositiveException(Number value, String key)
'check' is good. I'm going to change it to check.
as the name was changed to checkSomething, the last part Exception in
the name could be dropped.
Also, shouldn't the "key" argument should be optional?
The key is used to initialize the exception context with the Number
instance. Different modules could have different keys. For example
the Arithmetic module has keys X and Y. So if Y caused the exception
then Y would be passed as the key. So if we are checking both we
would do this:
checkNotStrictlyPositiveException(x, X);
checkNotStrictlyPositiveException(y, Y);
Then, in an application's code:
public void appMethod() {
// ...
// Use CM.
try {
Algo a = new Algo();
a.evaluate(2);
} catch (IllegalArgumentException iae) {
final Throwable cause = iae.getCause();
if (cause instanceof MathException) {
final MathException e = (MathException) cause;
// Rethrow an application-specific exception that will make
more sense
// to my customers.
throw new InvalidDataInputException(e.get(CONSTRAINT),
e.get(VALUE));
}
}
}
This is all untested.
Did I miss something?
In the code above, if the iae does not have a cause, or if it is not a
MathException,
the iae should be rethrown.
I think you got it all...But the handler will be shorter if the
exception is not wrapped.
But not significantly, I guess.
We could also provide
public MathException getMathException(RuntimeException e) {
if (e instanceof MathException) {
return (MathException) e;
}
final Throwable t = e.getCause();
if (t != null) {
if (e instanceof MathException) {
return (MathException) e;
}
}
return null;
}
And then define the other utility as:
public boolean isMathException(RuntimeException e) {
return getMathException(e) != null;
}
The pattern I'm used to is that libraries
wrap the exceptions of other libraries in order to offer a
standardized facade to the user. For example Spring wraps Hibernate
exceptions, since Spring is a layer on top of Hibernate and other
data
access providers.
What do they advertize? Standard exception, possibly extended, or
specific ones, possibly belonging to single hierarchy?
Spring namespaced - single hierarchy:
http://docs.spring.io/spring/docs/current/javadoc-api/org/springframework/dao/DataAccessException.html
BTW - this is blue sky thinking - but Spring Boot has an
@ExceptionHandler annotation that allows the developer to wire up an
exception handler. It might be worth exploring something similar for
the purpose of automating I18N requirements.
@ExceptionHandler(MathException.class)
someClientCodeThatUsesCM();
That would be quite necessary I'm afraid. ;-)
Not necessarily. The above support for I18N is quite simple.
best regards,
Luc
Best regards,
Gilles
Cheers,
Ole
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
