Message -
From: Galbreath, Mark [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List' [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 7:01 PM
Subject: RE: Basic (esoteric) Question
Thanks, David...very interesting. Too often, I think, Java programmers
take
error handling for granted and do
-
From: David Hamilton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 5:28 AM
To: Struts Users Mailing List
Subject: Re: Basic (esoteric) Question
Mark,
From what Bill Venners says in 'Inside the Java2 Virtual Machine', the
handling sequence goes like this:
The JVM searches the class
Indirectly yes. A declared exception (Checked) forces the caller to
implement code to check for that exception. So there is overhead to the
client and it can make the API more complex for the client. Generally, throw
a checked exception for conditions the caller can expect to recover.
Unchecked
So, if I understand you correctly, placing a throws clause in the
signature for a runtime error does not burden the client, whereas the same
for a checked exception will burden the client (force the client to traverse
the exception tree)?
Does this operate similarly within a try-catch block?
line: Best practice is to put a throws clause in the signature when
the checked exception is *recoverable* by the client.
-Original Message-
From: Galbreath, Mark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:26 AM
To: 'Struts Users Mailing List'
Subject: RE: Basic (esoteric
5 matches
Mail list logo
