Peter Donald wrote: > > At 10:11 10/4/01 +0200, Leo Simons wrote: > >proposal: > >For 4.0 of the framework code, CascadingException > >is updated to extend RuntimeException, > > -1 > > Whats wrong with CascadingRuntimeException??? > > >and new exceptions > >are created for all lifecycle methods except run(), stop() > >and dispose(). > > -1 for run > +1 for stop/start/resume/suspend/etc > +/-0 for dispose() (it will be ignored anyway) > > > > >So: > >contextualize() throws ContextualizationException > > How about ContextException? > > >init() throws InitializationException > > how about initialize() throws InitializationException ? ;) >
Lets avoid verylongandhardtotypeExceptionNames: ContextException, InitException? > >For: > >- making use of RuntimeException means that existing code > > will be able to compile and run if the exceptions are > > not actually thrown. > > Short term benefit is not worth the long term negative effects IMO > > >- since the lifecycle exceptions are indeed (almost > > always) runtime exceptions, this setup is also > > correct. > > What makes you so sure. I have gone out of my way to make all lifecycle > exceptions not RuntimeExceptions ;) I agree with Peter here (I think). If a change needs doing, lets do it properly first time. Also, lets keep RuntimeExceptions for, well, Runtime Exceptions! Charles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
