On 15 Jan 2016 at 10:38:05, vinc...@massol.net (vinc...@massol.net(mailto:vinc...@massol.net)) wrote:
> > > On 15 Jan 2016 at 10:34:58, Thomas Mortagne > (thomas.morta...@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.morta...@xwiki.com)) wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, vinc...@massol.net wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 15 Jan 2016 at 07:24:35, Marius Dumitru Florea > > > (mariusdumitru.flo...@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.flo...@xwiki.com)) > > > wrote: > > > > > >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:51 PM, vinc...@massol.net > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > Hi devs, > > >> > > > >> > Right now our strategy is for script services and script APIs in > > >> > general > > >> > to catch exceptions, store them and offer a getLastError() method to > > >> > get > > >> > them (see > > >> > http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Script+Module#HBestPractices > > >> > ) > > >> > > > >> > However it would be much nicer to: > > >> > * Let our script services generate exceptions > > >> > * Offer a velocity script service to get the last exception raised by a > > >> > java call from velocity > > >> > * Implement this uberspector to catch the exceptions and to set them in > > >> > the execution context > > >> > > > >> > That should be quite easy to implement IMO. > > >> > > > >> > WDYT? > > >> > > > >> > > >> +1, it's a pain to call setLastError() everywhere there can be an > > >> exception > > >> thrown, and we almost always forget to do it (for this reason). > > >> > > >> Note that we also have the #try() directive now. > > > > > > Yes, I should have mentioned that there’s indeed also this possibility: > > > * Have script API throw Exceptions > > > * Force velocity script users to wrap their code with the try directive > > > when they need to catch exceptions > > > > > > I still believe that the use of the Exception-catching uberspector is > > > better. > > > > > > WDYT? > > > > Does it mean you plan to get rid of new #try directive ? Because it > > will be broken with this new uberspector. > > That’s a good point, I had not thought about the implementation at this > stage. > > I think this could still work. When the #try directive is used I’d just have > to setup some flag somewhere in Velocity and in the uberspector I could check > if this flag is set and if so then don’t catch the exception. Actually, thinking more, I think you’re right and that the #try directive plays exactly the same role as an Exception-catching uberspector and I don’t see the need for the #try directive if we provide an uberspector. So I’m proposing to deprecate it but still keep it for backward compatibility for now (probably a full cycle). WDYT? Thanks -Vincent > Thanks > -Vincent > > > > Thanks > > > -Vincent > > > > > >> Thanks, > > >> Marius > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > >> > Thanks > > >> > -Vincent > > >> > > > >> > PS: This is http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-2374 _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
