[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7800?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16012170#comment-16012170
]
Robert Muir commented on LUCENE-7800:
-------------------------------------
Looks good. Maybe for cases like the snowball Throwable case
UndeclaredThrowableException would be better than wrapping in AssertionError. I
think it was designed for this exact purpose...
> Remove code that potentially rethrows checked exceptions from methods that
> don't declare them ("sneaky throw" hack)
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LUCENE-7800
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LUCENE-7800
> Project: Lucene - Core
> Issue Type: Task
> Reporter: Dawid Weiss
> Assignee: Dawid Weiss
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 6.x, master (7.0)
>
> Attachments: LUCENE-7800.patch, LUCENE-7800.patch, LUCENE-7800.patch
>
>
> For a long time I considered the "sneaky" throw hack to be a nice way of
> coding around some of Java's limitations (especially with invoking methods
> via reflection or method handles), but with time I started to see how it can
> be potentially dangerous and is nearly always confusing. If you have a Java
> method and its signature doesn't indicate the possibility of a checked
> exception you, as a programmer, simply don't expect it to happen. Never. So,
> for example, you could write:
> {code}
> try {
> luceneApi();
> } catch (RuntimeException | Error e) {
> // Handle unchecked exceptions here.
> }
> {code}
> and consider the code above to be absolutely bullet-proof in terms of
> handling exceptions. Unfortunately with sneaky throws anywhere in the
> "luceneApi" this is no longer the case -- you can receive a checked exception
> that will simply fall through and hit some code frame above.
> So I suggest we remove sneaky throw from the core entirely. It only exists in
> two places -- private methods inside Snowball programs invoked via method
> handles (these don't even declare checked exceptions so I assume they can't
> occur) and AttributeFactory -- here there is a real possibility somebody
> could declare an attribute class's constructor that does throw an unchecked
> exception. In that case I think it is more reasonable to wrap it in a
> RuntimeException than rethrow it as original.
> Alternatively, we can modify the signature of {{createAttributeInstance}} and
> {{getStaticImplementation}} to declare some kind of checked exception (either
> a wrapper or even a Throwable), but I see little reason for it and it'd
> change the API.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.15#6346)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@lucene.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@lucene.apache.org
