I am also "kind of" ok with removing the checked exceptions. But there are a couple of places where java.lang.Exception is declared in the interface, as a convenience to the user implementing it. Unless really strong reasons, I think that should remain, and perhaps even be extended where users are implementing.
Cheers Niclas On Mon, Dec 5, 2016 at 7:37 PM, Sandro Martini <sandro.mart...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Paul, > +1 from me for the change to unchecked exceptions, like in Scala (and > others). > > What do you think even on adding an annotation to better show (for > documentation purposes, etc) unchecked exceptions that could be thrown > (if useful) ? > Some info here: > http://alvinalexander.com/scala/how-to-declare-scala- > methods-throws-exceptions > > Bye > > > 2016-12-05 9:47 GMT+01:00 Paul Merlin <paulmer...@apache.org>: > > Gang, > > > > We have some checked exceptions in core: > > > > - AssemblyException > > - ActivationException > > - PassivationException > > - BindingException > > - InvalidInjectionException > > - EntityFinderException > > > > They get in the way, like checked exceptions do, when writing lambdas. > > The most annoying one is AssemblyException, it prevent us from writing > > concise application assemblies. > > > > I'd be in favor of changing these to non-checked exceptions. > > > > WDYT? > > > > /Paul > > > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
