[
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-89?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=13271266#comment-13271266
]
Michael Dürig commented on OAK-89:
----------------------------------
bq. The trouble with this approach is that the NameMapper can't know what kind
of a RepositoryException...
Right. That's why I said earlier (08/May/12 10:06) that when using checked
exceptions, we should make them specific, not inherit from a common base
exception, and keep them locally scoped. Otherwise we end with the same
situation you just described plus all the noise which goes with checked
exceptions.
bq. ... if it makes the code cleaner and/or safer, and doesn't lead to too much
control flow
It makes it safer but noisier. And well, checked exceptions are a control flow
construct. Only that no one dares to admit ;-)
> Improve exception handling
> --------------------------
>
> Key: OAK-89
> URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/OAK-89
> Project: Jackrabbit Oak
> Issue Type: Improvement
> Components: core, jcr
> Affects Versions: 0.2.1
> Reporter: Michael Dürig
> Attachments: OAK-89-2.patch, OAK-89.patch
>
>
> As discusses on the @oak-dev list [1] we need to improve the way exceptions
> are thrown and handled.
> I suggest to create a OakException which extends from RuntimeException and
> encapsulate a RepositoryException into it. These exceptions can then be
> handled where appropriate. We can the later turn this into a more
> sophisticated mechanism where the OakException is mapped to a corresponding
> RepositoryException by an injected mapping (see Jukka's proposal in the
> discussion).
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/t5czrpkvyamn7sym
--
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
If you think it was sent incorrectly, please contact your JIRA administrators:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/secure/ContactAdministrators!default.jspa
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira
