RE: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-11-21 Thread RK
:26 AM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items I'm in favour of the multiple exception catch. I think the common use for this is to catch a series of checked exceptions in a certain way, while avoiding catching unchecked exceptions which you want

Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-11-20 Thread Rainer Klute
Am Sa, 2004-11-20 um 08.31 schrieb Craig McClanahan: On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote: ... How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block? try { }

Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-11-20 Thread Felipe Leme
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 05:31, Craig McClanahan wrote: How about two lines, which you can already do today? try { ... } catch (Exception e) { ... } The problem with such approach is that it catches all exception, checked or not (see below) seems to be a standarized log it and exit or

RE: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-11-20 Thread Noel J. Bergman
try { } catch( (JMSException | RemoteException | SQLException) e) { } try { ... } catch (Exception e) { ... } Usually you don't want to just catch all exceptions in a single block. Instead you want to have clusters of exceptions And what is the common

Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-11-20 Thread Brett Porter
I'm in favour of the multiple exception catch. I think the common use for this is to catch a series of checked exceptions in a certain way, while avoiding catching unchecked exceptions which you want to propogate. This is a good thing, because often I've seen code that catches Exception for

Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-11-19 Thread Daniel Rall
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote: ... How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block? try { } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) { } or possibly even: try { } catch( (JMSException | RemoteException |

Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-11-19 Thread Craig McClanahan
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote: ... How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block? try { } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) { } or

Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-30 Thread Henning Schmiedehausen
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 19:35, Henri Yandell wrote: 2/ How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block? try { } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) { } or possibly even: try { } catch( (JMSException | RemoteException |

Re: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-29 Thread Dain Sundstrom
On Oct 27, 2004, at 4:15 PM, Bernhard Fastenrath wrote: method pointers? closures? Is anybody going to suggest self-modifying java assembler code as a language feature? I don't really see how you got from method pointers and closures to self-modifying code (I see that as a bit of fear

Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-29 Thread Henri Yandell
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Dain Sundstrom wrote: I actually love closures, and think it would be a great addition to Java. I spend a lot of time tracking down poorly written try/finally blocks in people's code where they don't properly close DB connections, IO streams, Jar files, and even delete

Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-29 Thread sebb
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:35:04 -0400 (EDT), Henri Yandell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Dain Sundstrom wrote: I actually love closures, and think it would be a great addition to Java. I spend a lot of time tracking down poorly written try/finally blocks in people's code

FW: RE: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-29 Thread Dan Lydick
List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/29/04 12:38:48 PM Subject: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items 2/ How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block? try { } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e

RE: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-29 Thread Gary Gregory
try { } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) { } +1 (We used to have something like that in Smalltalk) Gary - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL

Re: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-28 Thread Danny Angus
Dain wrote: I understand what you are saying, but do you believe that Sun could actually get such a feature right? I take your point, and tend to think not. I don't believe that Sun would get it right first time, not if we consider their track record. So, yes, I am arguing that no feature is

Re: FW: RE: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-27 Thread Danny Angus
Where's the advantage of a method pointer? Maybe Mr. Angus wasn't going here, but behind my concept was work I have done in C/C++ with arrays of function-through-pointer for varied functionality depending on context. Yes. It was in order to provide much more dynamic variation in behaviour,

Re: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-27 Thread Danny Angus
Dain wrote: If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code generation tool. Yeah I know, and I seriously believe that workarounds such as this do more to harm the so-called purity of Java than providing explicit language level mechanisms for method pointers. The AWT moved from

Re: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-27 Thread Dain Sundstrom
On Oct 27, 2004, at 1:10 AM, Danny Angus wrote: Dain wrote: If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code generation tool. Yeah I know, and I seriously believe that workarounds such as this do more to harm the so-called purity of Java than providing explicit language level

RE: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-27 Thread Jim Moore
12:53 PM To: Jakarta General List Subject: Re: Future JDK features 2 items On Oct 27, 2004, at 1:10 AM, Danny Angus wrote: Dain wrote: If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code generation tool. Yeah I know, and I seriously believe that workarounds such as this do more

Re: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-27 Thread Bernhard Fastenrath
method pointers? closures? Is anybody going to suggest self-modifying java assembler code as a language feature? Is the goal to break Java and render it useless? In my opinion we can live without closures. You didn't have to attach for a bit longer. Jim Moore wrote: The way that most modern

Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-26 Thread Danny Angus
1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers I *know* it is possible to accomplish all the delegation one might want by using polymorphism, but this often leads to unncessary screeds of boiler-plate, so I still I believe there is a case for some kind of streamlining of delegation by allowing it to be

FW: RE: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-26 Thread Dan Lydick
[Original Message] From: Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/26/04 3:17:32 AM Subject: Future JDK features 2 items 1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers But still, be sure to watch for flames from the Purist Society! They _do_ have a point

Re: FW: RE: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-26 Thread Bernhard Fastenrath
Dan Lydick wrote: From: Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers But still, be sure to watch for flames from the Purist Society! They _do_ have a point, ya know. I *know* it is possible to accomplish all the delegation one might want by using

Re: FW: RE: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-26 Thread Dan Lydick
[Original Message] From: Bernhard Fastenrath [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Jakarta General List [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 10/26/04 2:09:02 PM Subject: Re: FW: RE: Future JDK features 2 items Dan Lydick wrote: From: Danny Angus [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers

Re: Future JDK features 2 items

2004-10-26 Thread Dain Sundstrom
On Oct 26, 2004, at 1:17 AM, Danny Angus wrote: 1/ Ok don't flame me... Method pointers If you want method pointers today, just get a good byte code generation tool. We use cglib in Geronimo to generate FastMethod objects, which look a lot like reflection Method but are about a 100 times faster