Gilles Sadowski a écrit :
> Hi.
>
> [I'm not quoting previous messages because the mix of quotes and wrapped
> lines has become illegible.]
>
> I'll first list all of the problems (IMO) in the current handling of error
> reporting. Then I'll propose modifications that will hopefully solve them.
>
> Difficulties for the CM developers:
> 1. The message patterns appear in every exception instantiation.
> 2. The developer must correctly reproduce the pattern. Doing this by hand or
> by copy/paste is error-prone.
> 3. The developer must search the (long) list of available patterns in order
> to determine if one already exists that provides what he needs.
> 4. Localized message patterns contain Unicode escapes.
>
> Difficulties for the application-programmer using CM:
> 5. Different patterns actually report the same error type.
> 6. Many different errors are instantiated with an indiscriminate
> "IllegalArgumentException". This prevents flexible access to the cause
> of the error as it is only available as a "String".
> 7. As a consequence of point 6, the message reported to the end-user, as
> generated by CM, might not be consistent with the user action (at the
> higher-level application) that generated the error.
> 8. A variant of point 7: the application programmer should be free to
> design his own formatting of error messages (e.g. he might want to have
> all messages with an upper-cased first letter).
> 9. The patterns are not consistent: some start with an uppercase letter,
> some with a lower-case; in some cases, there is an upper-case letter in
> the English version, but not in the French version.
>
> Difficulty for some end-users:
> 10. Using a default non-English locale, while still wanting to have all
> error messages output in English.
>
> Those are not big problems, and could be dismissed as unimportant details;
> however, any library seeking wide use should promote the best practices,
> even in those little corners.
> I think that we can improve over the current way in all of the situations
> cited above.
>
> I have the impression that the current way is the result of writing the
> library around the localization feature instead of adding the feature to the
> library's "core business".
> Localisation is a high-level feature and should be as little intrusive as
> possible for those users who don't need it.[1]
> For those who actually need it, it should not be CM's decision as to what
> degree of flexibility is actually useful.
>
> Here what I propose:
> * At the level of CM, the building blocks for error reporting should be
> classes derived from (modified) "MathException" and
> "MathRuntimeException" classes[2].
> * Each exception class will represent a specific problem (e.g.
> "OutOfRangeException") and will belongs in an "exception" package.
> * The specific exception classes will provide accessors to the data
> relevant to the problem (e.g. methods "getLo()" and "getHi()" will
> respectively return the lower and higher bounds of the allowed interval,
> in the case of an "OutOfRangeException").
> * To enforce the use of meaningful exceptions throughout CM, the base
> classes constructors' access should be "protected".
> * Only the 2 base classes will deal with constructing an error message and
> will store an "enum" (e.g. "MathMessageKey.OUT_OF_RANGE") that will
> uniquely identify a pattern to be used for message formatting.
> * To enable localization, the base classes will delegate the actual
> formatting to a "Framework" interface. The actual class implementing the
> "Framework" can be selected at runtime, so that the user can choose from
> a default ("resources"-free) formatting or a localized one (with a
> possible dependency to an external library, for maximum flexibility).
>
> [In order not to add to an already long post, I won't detail how this
> proposal will obviously improve on the problems enumerated above.]
> Please let me know what you think.
>
>
> Best regards,
> Gilles
>
> [1] There is even the case where a user might not even *want* any code
> accessing "resources".
> [2] For the moment, I'll leave aside another problem: the choice of which
> errors should be inherited from "RuntimeException" and the fact that
> this choice is not consistent in CM. As changes in order to correct this
> will not be backward-compatible, it is left for another dicussion and
> for a major version bump.
>
> P.S. I have a prototype that partially implements these ideas. But I'm not
> sure how to proceed in order to demonstrate it, as it would also
> include configuration changes ("compile" vs "runtime") and it must
> create separate JARs for the alternative "Framework" implementations.
Perhaps you could open a Jira issue and attach your patch to it, so we
can all have a look at it. If we agree to it, then we could start a
branch on svn for this huge modification.
Luc
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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]
