I agree that there is a blurry line between exception and alternate
return value and as stated elsewhere I would prefer a union type in most
cases.
In your example the exception should be reasonable exceptional, though
-- after all people should not try a transfer unless they checked the
balance first. I guess it all depends on how you define "exceptional".
Peter
Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> Exceptions aren't just for exceptional situations. This seems
> perfectly legit to me:
>
> public class BankAccount {
> public void transferFundsTo(BankAccount other, int amount) throws
> InsufficientBalanceException {}
> }
>
>
> The InsufficientBalanceException is not an exceptional situation. It
> happens all the time, it's an intrinsic part of the design process.
> It's exceedingly likely the calling code will need to deal with the
> SITUATION that the bank account has insufficient funds. However, if
> this method just returned a boolean, they might forget to check.
>
> Proper usage of checked exceptions is actually that the exceptional
> cases (IOException, SQLException...), AND cases where the condition
> isn't particularly exceptional, but it is extremely unlikely that your
> average caller can do anything about it, you ought to be using
> runtimeexception (that would be the vast majority of them). For
> conditions that are NOT exceptional, you should be using checked
> exceptions. Of course, one mans exceptional usecase is another mans
> alternate exit condition, so this is fuzzy logic at best.
>
> >
>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The
Java Posse" group.
To post to this group, send email to javaposse@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
javaposse+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
