On 5/19/13 1:10 PM, Alex O'Ree wrote:
Exception
Well, I could have specified all of the HttpClient exceptions, however
many of the throwables are not defined within the "throws" statements
of the method declarations. So the simplest solution is to throw a
generic exception.
Well, or catch them on the client side and throw some new exception. We
can discuss on IRC.
Doxygen is not IDE specific. Its a documentation generator. The file
that's checked in provides a preconfigured setup for someone to use.
It's a value-add file and doesn't subtract from anything.
OK can we move it into the docs module then? And maybe add a readme how
to use it and why it is there. Is Doxygen an open source tool?
On May 18, 2013 3:47 PM, "Kurt T Stam" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 2. Why did you add 'Exception' to some method signatures?
for example:
> throws WSDLException, JAXBException, Exception {
>
> Now the caller is forced to catch Exception? Throwing
Exception hides granularity, and can make it harder to debug,
or to catch appropriate exceptions.
This is for wsdl2uddi and for supporting a Web accessible wsdl
via Apache http client which throws a wide variety of exceptions
OK still not sure what you mean with that; you can always catch
Exception to catch them all.
> 4. You added 2 convenience constructors in the uddi-ws
module on UDDI v3 entities. One should be able to use their
own UDDIv3 generated classes. So in theory this would break
that. In practice at the moment we've added our own juddiAPI
classes so we've already broken it, but I think we should try
to remove those classes at some point if possible. Also adding
javadoc to these files is nice, but if we regenerate then that
will all be last again, unless we manually add it back in.
>
You said adding java doc was ok. With it, there's no value
added to using the uddiws library. As you said, its already
broken. Jboss esb requires the juddi version of uddiws. I've
replaced it with my own generated from the wsdl and it broke.
Do ugh its already broken we might as well make it useful
Given some time I'd rather fix it.
> 7. I don't think you meant to check in the Doxyfile in the root?
I did
OK we don't check in any IDE specific files. Everyone has their
own little setup. You probably want to add it to .svnignore
