Berin Loritsch wrote:
>Quick question regarding the Startable
>interface:
>
>public interface Startable
>{
> void start() throws Exception;
> void stop() throws Exception;
>}
>
>Is there any particular reason that start() and stop() require
>exception throwing? Wouldn't RuntimeExceptions (reported in the
>javadocs so they are documented) be better?
>
-0
RuntimeExceptions can be painful and moving the declaration to javadoc
that means your not enforcing a try/catch on someone elses compoent. If
everything here was an in-house solution - maybe - but its not - your
components should work with my components - and the bottom line is that
as soon as you drop the normal exception from the contractual defintion
people will stop putting tty/catch blocks around this.
>
>Also, I thought that we were in favor of separating Intializable
>and Disposable.
>
They are seperate in 4.9 and bound together in 5.0 proposal.
I am in favour of maintaining them as seperate interfaces (i.e. no change).
> They aren't as tightly coupled as start()/stop()
>or suspend()/resume(). Otherwise, there will be a lot of components
>with either an empty initialize() or an empty dispose() method.
>
>
Cheers, Steve.
--
Stephen J. McConnell
OSM SARL
digital products for a global economy
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.osm.net
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
