I believe the only difference was Exception vs. TorqueException and the fulcrum api had a save() method which declared Exception. I would think a torque object throwing TorqueException would work in that case, but it did not, so I'm either wrong in that assumption, or I have forgotten a detail.
john mcnally On Fri, 2002-11-15 at 11:26, Daniel Rall wrote: > John McNally <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > I believe Martin just added to the docs earlier today covering the > > property that affects this. The better solution is to have torque throw > > runtime exceptions except in cases where it is fairly certain the > > application code can use the exception constructively. Since it may be > > desirable for torque objects to implement interfaces, it is better to > > have the generated methods unencumbered by named exceptions. > > > > I know the TorqueException/Exception problem occurs because of > > differences in exceptions between the fulcrum security api and torque. > > I can't remember the details on why Exception is better, but there was a > > problem. > > Wasn't it something to do with differing signatures? > -- > > Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > -- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-torque-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> > For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-torque-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-torque-dev-unsubscribe@;jakarta.apache.org> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:turbine-torque-dev-help@;jakarta.apache.org>
