[I hope this message gets to the list before everyone else has answered - my last post took about 12 hours to get through!]
> Blair Wyman wrote: > > Sure, in simple cases the argument is often made that "the > poor class user has to wrap all his constructor calls with > try/catch," but that isn't necessarily so. If the Blair, I agree with all the comments you made. However, it unfortunately seems that all too frequently developers have the attitude expressed by the above quote with regards to exception handling - i.e. "Oh, it's such a pain having to deal with all these exceptions. I can save myself loads of work by just: (1) always throwing RuntimeException, or (2) placing a huge try/catch(Exception) round all my code, or (3) never throwing exceptions (absorb errors or use error codes)". I've seen all 3 of these techniques employed, which in almost all cases pretty much defeat the whole purpose Java's exception mechanism! Yes, coding proper exception handling into your apps takes significant effort and requires careful consideration of the functionality and how it will be used, but the alternative is apps that are unpredictable and clumsy. Anwyay, getting back to the original point, yes, throw exceptions from constructors if failing to do this would create an invalid object. ____________________________________________________ To change your JDJList options, please visit: http://www.sys-con.com/java/list.cfm Be respectful! Clean up your posts before replying ____________________________________________________
