I think that as long as the spec says throws java.x.Y, and we throw a java.x.Y (or an o.a.h subclass of java.x.Y) then that meets the spec.
I think the wording could be clearer though; for example, the 'public superclass' is almost certainly meant to be 'an exception in the standard Java class libraries'. For a start, sun.io.MalformedInputException might actually be a subclass of sun.io.GeneralInputException, which has the ACC_PUBLIC bit set (even though it's not a defined class in the Java spec). Perhaps "If the exception thrown is a direct instance of an exception from the Java libraries, we will throw the same exception; if it is an instance of an exception not in the Java libraries then we will throw an equivalent o.a.h exception or a parent exception in the Java libraries". It's possible that there's an exception class which is abstract that we must create a subclass for, though off the top of my head I can't think of an abstract exception class in the Java libraries ... Alex. On 09/08/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"But there are some cases that RI throws an implementation specific exception, we shall throw its public superclass. e.g., If RI throws sun.io.MalformedInputException, we shall throw java.io.CharConversionException. " I think it's OK to throw Harmony-implement subclass of the public superclass for some cases? Do you think so?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
