[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-5869?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=16624203#comment-16624203
]
Marshall Schor commented on UIMA-5869:
--------------------------------------
Clarification: I think this isn't a "javadoc" issue, but a pure code issue,
because the method signature in JCasImpl for getView is:
{code:java}
public JCas getView(String localViewName) throws CASException //<<< the
JCasImpl signature
JCas getView(String localViewName) throws CASException; // <<< the
JCas interface signature{code}
Because of these signatures, existing users of the JCas APIs *must have
try/catch* blocks for this exception, but if it happens, a different exception
which is not a subtype of CASException is thrown (and therefore, not caught).
I think I agree this is faulty behavior, and would be fixed if the
implementation caught the CASRuntimeException and re-threw it as a CASException.
So I'm OK with making that change. Other opinions?
> The JCas getView method throws CasRuntimeException not CasException
> -------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: UIMA-5869
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/UIMA-5869
> Project: UIMA
> Issue Type: Bug
> Components: Core Java Framework
> Affects Versions: 2.10.2SDK, 3.0.0SDK
> Reporter: Burn Lewis
> Priority: Minor
>
> Code that uses JCas getView expects CasException to be thrown if a view is
> missing, but instead the underlying CAS.getView method throws
> CasRuntimeException.
> Either the code or the Javadocs should be fixed. Since a missing view is not
> uncommon, throwing an unchecked exception is not very useful. Making the
> framework code match the Javadocs should have tminimal impact on existing
> user code.
>
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v7.6.3#76005)
