IMO, you let the underlying JRE API throw the exception. Gary
> -----Original Message----- > From: James Carman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 8:28 AM > To: 'Jakarta Commons Developers List' > Subject: RE: [lang] enhanced version of Class.forName > > Well, what does the [lang] "team" think about this approach (just letting > Class.forName() throw the ClassNotFoundException)? Does this work for you > guys? I have added a patch to issue 36512 which includes code to > implement > it this way (my latest patch). Are there any votes against this method > being implemented this way? If not, do you guys care if I go ahead and > commit it (I'll wait a while for votes)? Since I'm not a "normal" [lang] > committer, I don't want to step on anyone's toes. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Emmanuel Bourg [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 06, 2005 11:04 AM > To: Jakarta Commons Developers List > Subject: Re: [lang] enhanced version of Class.forName > > James Carman wrote: > > Do you think we need to go through the trouble of throwing an > > IllegalArgumentException if it's not a well-formed class name (starts > with > > character, blah blah blah)? Or, can we just let it throw a > > ClassNotFoundException after doing as much as we can with the string > that's > > passed in (i.e. transforming it into the proper format)? > > I was going to make this suggestion, that seems good enough to me. > > Emmanuel Bourg > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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]
