Frank Kim wrote:
>
> I agree that it is a good idea to throw TurbineException because it helps
> differentiate between turbine specific exceptions and other exceptions. But
> I don't want to have to catch Exceptions within a given method and then cast
> it into a TurbineException. I think we can leave the method signatures to
> throw plain old Exception and just throw TurbineException (or subclasses of
> it like InvalidPermissionException) within a particular method where
> necessary. For example, the Loaders could throw TurbineException to make it
> clear that it's a Turbine problem of not being able to find a class. That
> way Turbine will still catch all exceptions in one place and we'll be able
> to differentiate between Turbine generated exceptions and other exceptions.
>
> Different applications have different exception handling frameworks and I
> think Turbine's strategy of catching and then logging, displaying, etc all
> exceptions in one place is a good one.
<snip>
Not a cast:
try {
...
} catch(Exception e) {
throw new TurbineException(e.getMessage()); //or whatever
}
--
Kevin A Burton ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://relativity.yi.org
Message to SUN: "Open Source Java!"
"For evil to win is for good men to do nothing."
------------------------------------------------------------
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
