Definately something we should add to our discussion list once 1.0 is
out of the way.
-Corey
On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:32:28 +0100, Mark Lowe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I'll put the exception tests in with the the others, when its all in.
> I left most the tests untouched anyhow just testing for EmailException
> rather than MessagingException. Once EmailException is in the head
> version I'll start thinking about AddressException.
>
> Has the issue of bulk mailing comeup before? I'm thinking of a class
> that extends thread and then sends a email report to a specified email
> address reporting which have been sent and those that haven't. Does
> this fall within the scope of commons email? Email could even extend
> thread and then just use the run method when needing to mail to lots
> of folk.. This would be handy for webapps where the time it takes to
> send mail exceeds the time for the request-reponse cycle.
>
> HtmlEmail email = ..
> ..
> email.batchMail();
>
> public void batchMail() {
> this.run();
> }
>
> public void run() {
> try {
> send();
> } catch (SomeExceptionn e) {
>
> }
> }
>
> Or would something else be a better idea? Perhaps a separate class
> EmailSender or something?
>
>
>
> Mark
>
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 11:38:30 +0800, Corey Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Sounds good to me, I have a stack of things waiting for the next version.
> > Also I think most of the bugs have been cleared off by your recent
> > commits so there shouldnt be any reason to stop us from a RC1
> >
> >
> >
> > -Corey
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:01:00 +0100, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I've applied a stack of changes, including Mark's EmailException, to the
> > > codebase. I don't really care much about how the unit tests look, as
> > > long
> > > as the jcoverage keeps going up!
> > >
> > > At this point, I think all the API changes are done, and my gut feeling is
> > > that we should look to final testing, cut a Release Candidate and then
> > > roll
> > > 1.0. We should also start thinking about what the next version will
> > > entail.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Eric
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 5:25 PM
> > > > To: Corey Scott
> > > > Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > Subject: Re: [email] Exceptions
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Okay I'll take a look tommorrow and sumbit my patch with the test
> > > > cases in with the Other test methods.
> > > >
> > > > Judging from you example, you agree that unexpected exceptions should
> > > > just get thrown and that exceptions should be tested independently to
> > > > normal tests, which all sounds good to me. Or am i wrong? If the
> > > > method isn't there to invoke an exception then if one happens then
> > > > surely just throw it, the fact that its unexpected will be evident by
> > > > virtue of the test failing due to errors.
> > > >
> > > > Mark
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 00:04:16 +0800, Corey Scott
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > This is exactly what I was trying to say, just not so elegantly :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Eg. Tests for the HtmlEmail class should be in teh HtmlEmailTest class
> > > > > or is this becomes too big and you want to separate the exceptions,
> > > > > then there should be two classes HtmlEmailTest (for normal test cases)
> > > > > and HtmlEmailExceptionTest
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > -Corey
> > > > >
> > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:59:29 +0100, Eric Pugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Humm... I typically make all my unit tests throw Exception.
> > > > It reduces
> > > > > > the length of each test, especially when all you are doing is
> > > > logging that
> > > > > > it failed with a fail(ex.getMessage).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, if you are actually TESTING that an exception gets thrown:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > try {
> > > > > > email.doSomething();
> > > > > > fail("should have thrown ee");
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > catch (EmailException ee){
> > > > > > assertTrue(ee.getMessage().indexOf("myerror")>-1)
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > then I argue they should go in with whatever class we are
> > > > testing, because
> > > > > > when someone adds a new method to the class, it will
> > > > encourage them to add
> > > > > > the corresponding test case for any exeption. Or, put the
> > > > exception test
> > > > > > into the test.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > public void testSomething() throws Exception{
> > > > > > email.doSomethign();
> > > > > > <snip/>
> > > > > > try {
> > > > > > email.doSomething();
> > > > > > fail("should have thrown ee");
> > > > > > }
> > > > > > catch (EmailException ee){
> > > > > > assertTrue(ee.getMessage().indexOf("myerror")>-1)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That way everything stays together. If we aren't actually
> > > > asserting the
> > > > > > exception, then we shouldn't bother testing it..
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eric
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > Sent: Monday, November 29, 2004 3:19 PM
> > > > > > > To: Corey Scott
> > > > > > > Cc: Jakarta Commons Developers List
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [email] Exceptions
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My thoughts on the test cases are that they should throw
> > > > > > > exception,
> > > > > > > and then have the exception testing separate. This would make the
> > > > > > > cases shorter also, perhaps this is what you mean.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > public void testFoo() throws Exception
> > > > > > > {
> > > > > > > Foo foo = new Foo();
> > > > > > > foo.setBar("testvar");
> > > > > > > }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For example, if for some reason the exception for setBar() was
> > > > > > > ever
> > > > > > > changed the case could remain the same as before, and the
> > > > only change
> > > > > > > would need to be in the exception test case.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 21:59:44 +0800, Corey Scott
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > I would prefer an Exception Test case per base class,
> > > > especially for
> > > > > > > > the larger files. I know most of the tests I wrote, but
> > > > I think that
> > > > > > > > if anything the files are too long and would be much more
> > > > usable if
> > > > > > > > they were shorter and more focused. Does anyone have any
> > > > objections
> > > > > > > > to gave more (but shorter) files?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -Corey
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 14:17:30 +0100, Mark Lowe
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > I've created the exceptions and I'm now working through the
> > > > > > > test cases.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If I summit a patch with the exception testing in a
> > > > ExceptionTestCase
> > > > > > > > > what's the likelyhood of this being patched? This isn't
> > > > a question of
> > > > > > > > > style its a question of maintainabilty and now, I'm
> > > > faced with the
> > > > > > > > > task of weeding out all these try catch statements.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Any objection to a patch with these exception tests moved
> > > > > > > > > into a
> > > > > > > > > specialised test case?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:23:50 +0100, Mark Lowe
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Okay 2 commons.mail exceptions sounds like an improvement.
> > > > > > > So the goal
> > > > > > > > > > is to minimise the catch statements the user needs to
> > > > use, sound
> > > > > > > > > > reasonable. Throwing everything would mean 2 catches, so I
> > > > > > > can see the
> > > > > > > > > > value in catching once.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I'll look into a way of having a 1.4+ build option in the
> > > > > > > build files
> > > > > > > > > > for folk that don't give a gnat's winnit about 1.3 et al.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anyone know the default behaviour for the
> > > > > > > InternetAddress(email,name)
> > > > > > > > > > constructor? Does it adopt the charset from the parent
> > > > > > > > > > email?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 11:11:06 +0100, Eric Pugh
> > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > My take on this is that users of [email] are looking for
> > > > > > > a package that
> > > > > > > > > > > simplifies the JavaMail api. And one of the big
> > > > > > > simplifing aspects is that
> > > > > > > > > > > the Exceptions that they have to catch are minimized.
> > > > > > > Most users will
> > > > > > > > > > > probably not care *what* the exception was, only that
> > > > > > > there *was* an
> > > > > > > > > > > exception, and just pass it up the chain. For folks who
> > > > > > > actually have code
> > > > > > > > > > > to deal with the specific exception, then they are either
> > > > > > > going to use the
> > > > > > > > > > > JavaMail api directly without the extra layer of [email],
> > > > > > > or we should
> > > > > > > > > > > provide a way for them to retrieve the specific Exception.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hence that is why I propose that we have two types
> > > > of exceptions:
> > > > > > > > > > > EmailException and RuntimeEmailException. For common
> > > > > > > exceptions, we throw
> > > > > > > > > > > an EmailException which is an extension of
> > > > > > > NestableException and wraps
> > > > > > > > > > > whatever the underlying JavaMail exception was. This
> > > > > > > provides a nice facade
> > > > > > > > > > > for people who don't care what the exception was, but
> > > > > > > allows folks who do to
> > > > > > > > > > > get the underlying exception.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The other RuntimeEmailException will extend
> > > > > > > NestableRuntimeException and can
> > > > > > > > > > > be used for any runtime exceptions in the same manner as
> > > > > > > EmailException.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > For the case of the UEE, that would be another exception
> > > > > > > in the API to
> > > > > > > > > > > throw, which goes against the charter that:
> > > > > > > > > > > "contains a set of Java classes providing a thin
> > > > > > > convenience layer over
> > > > > > > > > > > JavaMail". So, in that case, throw the approapriate
> > > > > > > EmailException and
> > > > > > > > > > > that will wrap the UEE.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Mark, is it possible to use the 1.4 io stuff
> > > > > > > conditionally? I guess not,
> > > > > > > > > > > but we could think about maybe how we compile the jar?
> > > > > > > Our primary target
> > > > > > > > > > > is definitly 1.3 for now though.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Eric
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > > > > From: Mark Lowe [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > > > Sent: Sunday, November 28, 2004 4:04 PM
> > > > > > > > > > > > To: Commons dev list; Corey Scott
> > > > > > > > > > > > Subject: [email] Exceptions
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The issue of exceptions has come up a few times, and
> > > > > > > heres a summary
> > > > > > > > > > > > of my understanding of whats been said and agreed and
> > > > > > > disagreed about.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The idea of throwing AddressException is favourable,
> > > > > > > but not at the
> > > > > > > > > > > > cost of needing to throw UnsupportingEncodingException.
> > > > > > > When setting
> > > > > > > > > > > > InternetAddress() this throws a UEE and
> > > > > > > > > > > > AddressException.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > My position is that without 1.4's new io package
> > > > > > > there's no means of
> > > > > > > > > > > > checking supported charsets on a given JVM. If the user
> > > > > > > enters a shady
> > > > > > > > > > > > charset for a email address or name is there anything
> > > > > > > wrong with them
> > > > > > > > > > > > having a UEE thrown?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The lightest means of doing this in my opinion is just
> > > > > > > throw both, its
> > > > > > > > > > > > consistent with the mailapi. It would work on all
> > > > target JVMs.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Of course you could just throw MessagingException for
> > > > > > > everything , "oh
> > > > > > > > > > > > thats what it does". But is this a useful and therefore
> > > > > > > good thing?
> > > > > > > > > > > > Having a commons.mail.EmailException was suggested,
> > > > > > > but does that
> > > > > > > > > > > > have any advantage over throwing AddressException and
> > > > > > > UEE? I'm not
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I don't mind summitting the patches, i need to do this
> > > > > > > for a project
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm working on at present, so I need to do the work
> > > > > > > anyway. It makes
> > > > > > > > > > > > sense to submit this to the effort but I don't
> > > > mind either way.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Mark
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail:
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
