On 18/Nov/2009 18:15, Jesse Wilson wrote: > On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM, Tim Ellison <t.p.elli...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Being consistent on checked exceptions like IOException is still >> beneficial, >> >> and we should continue to maintain our current behaviour. >> >> Being consistent ... on throwing priority? So you are suggesting that >> we continue to enforce priority order for multiple errors resulting in >> exceptions outside the set above? >> >> Just trying to understand precisely what you are proposing. > > My focusing on a specific set of exceptions makes more complicated than > necessary; sorry about that. Ultimately I agree with the RI's decision that > it is bogus to either specify or enforce a particular exception priority.
Shame, I thought you had something there, because I wonder about the problems that may ensue if we allow the order of checked/unchecked exceptions to change. For example, consider a stream's "read(buffer) throws IOException" method. By definition the application code will have decided on some way to handle the IOException. However, if there are multiple pre-condition errors such as the read() being invoked on a closed stream, and the user passing in a null buffer. The user code may very well care that the IOException is thrown early, and handled, before the NullPointerException is thrown, and possibly causing a crash. Regards, Tim
