On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 05:26 pm, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
On Wednesday, August 27, 2003, at 05:35 AM, Alex Blewitt wrote:On Wednesday, Aug 27, 2003, at 09:06 Europe/London, James Strachan wrote:
On Tuesday, August 26, 2003, at 07:13 pm, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
-1 for the reason below and I believe this type of requirement on programmers will lead to worse exception handling. If a developer has to add a new class for every exception message, they won't throw exceptions.
Then they're very lazy developers :)
Absoultely. Being a lazy developer is great; learn to make the tools work for you. In eclipse, you can say 'throw new NonExistantException()' and then the red-squiggle underline gives you a prompt to create the class...
I for one hope that this idea dies right here. There are no lazy developers here. This is an opensource project and anyone that shows up is definitely not lazy. We have a certain amount of effort available to us, and we can choose to use it by making developers do tedious development tasks, because one day someone might find it useful, or we can point them at exciting stuff people need today. Also, if coding on geronimo is tedious because of our development rules, very few will join us and our over all effort pool will be even smaller.
I don't see how encouraging developers to hide exception messages inside Exception classes rather than litter them through the application code makes development tedious or is particularly much effort. It'll help us provide consistent exception codes or add i18n later on with minimal refactoring overhead.
Before we add any such rules, I think we need to thing about weather the rule is worth the effort expense and impact on our over all effort pool.
However I concur that we should not be too strict on coding rules to start with - we need lots of code writing & don't wanna put folks off by being too religious about code conventions. Indeed we should be focussing on ensuring the core container, component model & deployer architecture is right so we can start filling in the J2EE stack rather than worrying too much about the exact layout of the code - we can refactor later.
James ------- http://radio.weblogs.com/0112098/
