On 12/22/2010 04:55 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 12/22/10 03:34 PM, Gregg Wonderly wrote:
On 12/22/2010 9:10 AM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
On 12/22/10 03:07 PM, Rémi Forax wrote:
On 12/22/2010 02:45 PM, Chris Hegarty wrote:
Have we thought about catching/swallowing these exceptions?
What do you want to do in the catch block ?
Would it make sense to simply swallow the exception ( do nothing ) and
continue
with the next element? Clearly if contains() throws and Exception then
the
collection does not contain the given element?
It seems that Logger use here might be useful. A FINE level log of the
stack trace would allow the user to discover why the failure/success
return was not as they expected. From some perspectives, I'd be tempted
to log at WARNING for myself as this does represent an unexpected, yet
non-fatal condition in the software.
Yes, this is a good proposal. I guess we need to establish whether we
consider passing these "incompatible" collections a programmer error
or not. I was just trying to ensure that we had considered all options.
-Chris.
The main problem with logging is that you may see a lot of records
if the application compares huge of collections of turtles and nipples
(i.e collections of incompatible type)
Moreover if a code relies on catching a CCE in that case, if we log or
silently ignore the CCE,
the performance will drop.
Gregg Wonderly
Rémi
