[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-769?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13797697#comment-13797697
]
Henri Yandell commented on LANG-769:
------------------------------------
I'm in favour of the NotImplemented one too. I'll admit to it always being my
favourite as well. Baby, bathwater etc :)
I like the positive approach too, but for the sake of migration I'm tempted to
stay with the old name. Plus that way it does support both not yet and not ever.
Adding another argument for an issue ID (effectively error code, but a positive
one) is good.
Should we move it into the exception subpackage?
> Please restore NotImplementedException and UnhandledException
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: LANG-769
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/LANG-769
> Project: Commons Lang
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: lang.exception.*
> Reporter: david cogen
> Priority: Minor
> Fix For: 3.2, Discussion
>
>
> Why were these removed? I found these very useful and used them often. As the
> version 2.6 api javadoc states, "This exception supplements the standard
> exception classes by providing a more semantically rich description of the
> problem."
> Just want you to realize that these have found direct use outside the
> library; not just internal use within commons-lang.
> I will define these missing classes myself, or maybe include both
> commons-lang and commons-lang3 (but I really don't to do that). It would be
> very nice to have these back.
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1#6144)
