I never thought I'd see anything useful on an OSGi blog, but today I saw
this:

http://www.osgi.org/blog/2011/03/exception-hygiene.html

So if you accept that CheckedExceptions are a bad idea... read the comments
on this post.  There is a debate as to how to handle the atrocity that the
CheckedException.  There are two approaches that are debated:

1)
void foo() {
    try {
        bar();
    } catch( Exception e) {
        throw new RuntimeException(e);
    }
}

2)
void foo() throws Exception {
    bar();
}

I used to be in the #1 camp.  But after reading the thread, I'm thinking
that just putting throws Exception everywhere might be easier/more
pragmatic.  It's uglier, but it does make the stack dump more readable I
think.  In reality I hate both solutions as I'd really rather just turn them
off.  But that isn't doable.

Any thoughts on the pros/cons of #1 vs #2?  Or other options?

-- 
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.

Reply via email to