[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mathieu Frenette) writes:
> I'm about to start porting the OM for throwing TorqueException instead of
> Exception. This change should be 100% backward compatible, because all
> existing client code which is catching Exception will also catch
> TorqueException.
>
> My initial goal was to modify only the OM classes (by modifying the
> velocimacros), since it's the part that is the most exposed to users.
>
> However, after much consideration and browsing through the code, I realized
> that if we go up to the source and also modify the BasePeer and Torque
> classes, we will get much cleaner code all the way down through the OM.
>
> Since BasePeer and Torque are presently throwing Exception, we would have to
> wrap those exceptions into TorqueException from within the OM classes.
>
> However, if BasePeer and Torque were modified to throw TorqueException
> instead, we could just let those exceptions flow through the OM classes,
> which would make the code cleaner, and avoid excessive exception wrapping.
>
> I know those two classes are really the corner stone of the framework. But,
> theoritically, this should also be 100% backward compatible. So it's really
> yours to decide whether they should be modified in this action item.
>
> [vote]
> Should BasePeer and Torque classes be modified for throwing TorqueException,
> in addition to OM classes?
Mathieu, you have my +1 to modify the Torque Java source and Velocity
templates to throw TorqueException instead of Exception. This is a
fully backwards compatible change, and we can debate at length whether
TorqueException should be a checked or unchecked exception _after_ the
change is made.
Thanks, Dan
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
