[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-508?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13862733#comment-13862733
]
Shant Stepanian commented on VFS-508:
-------------------------------------
I'd ask if these exceptions that are exposed in much of the current API
(specifically in the org.apache.commons.vfs2.VFS and
org.apache.commons.vfs2.FileObject classes) truly warrant throwing checked
exceptions that programmers must be aware of. However we accomplish this
change, whether by changing the base class of FileSystemException or by
changing the signatures of the VFS and FileObject classes to not throw checked
exceptions, does not matter to me
As an example why I don't think many of the calls in these 2 classes warrant
checked exceptions, see the first one from my earlier comment:
* File.listFiles() vs. FileObject.getChildren()
Certainly, something can go wrong if that is called, but I'd argue that in most
cases, if you cannot complete a simple "getChildren" call, that is probably not
a "recoverable" error, as mentioned in Gary's first comment (step 58), and so I
should not have to catch an exception for that. (much like we would not catch
errors if, say, we run out of memory). Plus, the core Java API does not feel
these are worthy of throwing checked exceptions, so I'd ask why these are
checked exceptions in VFS
This is one example, but I can certainly come up with more if needed
> Change FileSystemException to inherit from a RuntimeException, and not
> IOException (patch attached)
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Key: VFS-508
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/VFS-508
> Project: Commons VFS
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Reporter: Shant Stepanian
> Attachments: changeFileSystemToRuntime.patch
>
>
> I'd like to see if we can FileSystemException to inherit from a
> RuntimeException, and not IOException
> I searched the JIRA and didn't see any old tickets referring to this, so I'll
> bring it up here
> _The reason_
> The reason would go back to the whole "Runtime vs. Checked" exception debate,
> and I do prefer the RuntimeException argument that with those, you have the
> choice on whether to declare the try/catch block upon usage, whereas Checked
> exceptions force that on you
> In particular, I bring this up because I feel it hurts the usability of the
> API to have all operations as a checked exception. I recently looked to
> convert my code from using the regular Java JDK file api to the VFS api, and
> I found that in a number of places, I now have to add a try/catch block to
> handle a checked exception where I previously didn't have to (e.g.
> File.listFiles() vs. FileObject.getChildren(), new File("myFile") vs.
> VFS.getManager().resolveFile("myFile"))
> Having one less impediment to migrate would make it easier to adopt for more
> people. As a frame of reference, Hibernate did make a change like this to
> convert HibernateException from checked to runtime, and it was fine for them
> _Patch and Impact of Change_
> I've attached a patch of the change - you can see it is very small, and the
> code still compiles. I ran a test locally and it failed on some of the
> external-resource-related bits; I can follow up on this, but would like to
> first get your approval on this ticket before proceeding w/ any more work
> In terms of client changes - this would only impact clients that happened to
> explicitly expect an IOException in their catch block, and not directly the
> FileSystemException. (this affected one piece of code within VFS itself, but
> could affect clients).
> But I believe that this still would be a beneficial change, as it would make
> all clients' code cleaner and make it easier to adopt
--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.1.5#6160)
