Sounds good.
On Tue, Dec 6, 2016 at 5:44 PM, Paul Merlin wrote:
> Le 2016-12-05 13:04, Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
>
>> I am also "kind of" ok with removing the checked exceptions. But there are
>> a couple of places where java.lang.Exception is declared in the inter
Le 2016-12-05 13:04, Niclas Hedhman a écrit :
I am also "kind of" ok with removing the checked exceptions. But there
are
a couple of places where java.lang.Exception is declared in the
interface,
as a convenience to the user implementing it. Unless really strong
reasons,
I think t
And about annotation of exception thrown for documentation purposes; No,
Scala is Scala. In Java we can still declare the RuntimeExceptions being
thrown. That is already present in many places. Difference is that the
compiler can't check it (u, maybe that's why it is called Checked
I am also "kind of" ok with removing the checked exceptions. But there are
a couple of places where java.lang.Exception is declared in the interface,
as a convenience to the user implementing it. Unless really strong reasons,
I think that should remain, and perhaps even be extended where
-declare-scala-methods-throws-exceptions
Bye
2016-12-05 9:47 GMT+01:00 Paul Merlin :
> Gang,
>
> We have some checked exceptions in core:
>
> - AssemblyException
> - ActivationException
> - PassivationException
> - BindingException
> - InvalidInjectionException
> - Enti
Gang,
We have some checked exceptions in core:
- AssemblyException
- ActivationException
- PassivationException
- BindingException
- InvalidInjectionException
- EntityFinderException
They get in the way, like checked exceptions do, when writing lambdas.
The most annoying one is
