On Dec 20, 2007 2:25 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Makes sense. I wasn't sure if declaring new exceptions to be thrown > is violating back-compat. issues or not (even if they are runtime > exceptions)
That's a good question... I know that declared RuntimeExceptions are contained in the bytecode (the method signature)... but I don't know if they need to match up exactly for things to work. To be safe I guess we should start out with it commented out (or just documented in the JavaDoc). -Yonik > On Dec 20, 2007, at 1:47 PM, Yonik Seeley wrote: > > > On Dec 20, 2007 1:36 PM, Grant Ingersoll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> But, I can see the value in the throw the exception > >> case too, except I think the API should declare the exception is > >> being > >> thrown. It could throw an extension of IOException. > > > > To be robust, user indexing code needs to catch other types of > > exceptions that could be thrown from Anaylzers anyway. > > > > I don't think this exception (if we choose to keep it as an exception) > > fits in the class of IOException, where something is normally really > > wrong. > > > > We could declare addDocument() to throw something inherited from > > RuntimeException though, right? > > > > -Yonik > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
