Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Concrete examples:
>
> Runnable does not let you throw Exceptions. Anyone up for defending
> this grievous API design? The amount of annoyance that this is caused
> me is almost limitless.
>
Well Runnable is really for cases where run() should eat any exceptions
other than things like VirtualMachineErrors -- and should not be used
for anything else.
That said, this is exactly where BGGA's exception transparency should
come into play -- to allow you to define:
public interface Callable<T,E>
{
public T call() throws E;
}
I will almost certainly get BGGA's proposed syntax muddled here, but the
important thing here is that call() could throw a precise set of checked
exceptions and this set would be bubbled up in generic algorithms
(rather than Exception as in Callable<T> today), e.g.
public <T,E> visit( Callable<T,E> visitor ) throws SQLException, E;
or some such. The actual list of checked exceptions emanating from
visit would be SQLException, IOException, MalformedURLException if E was
IOException, MalformedURLException.
One can still wrap the exception at any point along the way, of course,
but one is not /forced /to arbitrarily do so at various points as one is
today just because of the imprecision of a generic algorithm's declaration.
--
Jess Holle
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
