propagating would be fine for me as well, anything but current behavior
actually.
~ Simon
On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 4:50 PM, Blake Sullivan
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote:
> Actually, I suspect that the correct solution is to allow the
> ClassCastException to propagate. I don't see how having random, non-Integer
> objects map to row-not-present is ever what the developer intended. This
> code looks like it was added to avoid exceptions during rendering, but I
> feel it is more important to find these problems during development.
>
> -- Blake Sullivan
>
> Simon Lessard said the following On 10/16/2008 12:50 PM PT:
>
> Hi all,
>
> I'm working on an ADF Faces Rich Client atm and as some may know, that
> library is based on Trinidad. Anyway, while debugging for a completely
> different issue, I found out the following in SortableModel class:
>
> private int _toRowIndex(Object rowKey)
> {
> if (rowKey == null)
> return -1;
>
> try
> {
> return ((Integer)rowKey).intValue();
> }
> catch (ClassCastException e)
> {
> _LOG.warning("INVALID_ROWKEY", new Object[]{rowKey ,
> rowKey.getClass()});
> _LOG.warning(e);
> return -1;
> }
> }
>
> I think we should change that to something like the following to not
> shallow an Exception that's more expensive to create than an instanceof
> check. Note that for some reason I get one such exception per request
> currently so this is kind of annoying ;) :
>
> private int _toRowIndex(Object rowKey)
> {
> if (rowKey == null)
> {
> return -1;
> }
> else if (rowKey instanceof Integer)
> {
> return ((Integer)rowKey).intValue();
> }
> else
> {
> _LOG.warning("INVALID_ROWKEY", new Object[]{rowKey ,
> rowKey.getClass()});
> return -1;
> }
> }
>
> What do you think?
>
>
> ~ Simon
>
>
>
