on 12/16/99 6:50 PM, Kevin A. Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I like getRunData()
cool. no big deal.
> And do what? If it does throw an IOException... this is *very* bad and
> we should let Turbine handle it with an error page. I mean if it can't
> get an OutputStream............. we are screwed.
right, but i want to keep all the exception handling in one place in this
case. that way, we can direct the output to a log file if needed.
> Ouch. Good point. I didn't pay attention to data.contexts. We should
> actually change both to jdniContext and servletContext with getters.
yep.
> I am not sure I like this. I agree about future additions but we should
> have a TurbineException which inherits from Exception. This way people
> can blend this into their code as an API and be specific with regards to
> an actual Turbine problem or a java problem.
>
> I think this is the way to go.
I don't totally agree, the issue is that people would need to actually
try/catch stuff if you throw that...i think that is more of a pain in the
ass vs. knowing if it is turbine or java problem. that is why things like
Screen.build() throw Exception instead of TurbineException.
in reality, i don't think that it matters...people are going to know where
the problem is...that is what printStackTrace is for. ;-)
> I didn't modify RunData. I didn't like that had public data. Not
> totally OO IMO. We should make RunData's members package private and
I agree. (I explained this earlier, but I will repeat) It was an early
mistake on my part and we (CI) are currently creating a site with a VERY
tight deadline (jan 30th) and making those things private could screw us
over. so, please leave them public for now and create the get/set methods
with the assumption that we will make them private eventually.
-jon
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
