Le 14/11/2010 21:57, Gilles Sadowski a écrit : > Hi Luc. Hi Gilles,
> >> Author: luc >> Date: Sun Nov 14 15:06:11 2010 >> New Revision: 1035003 >> >> URL: http://svn.apache.org/viewvc?rev=1035003&view=rev >> Log: >> fixed message building so the behavior matches the existing javadoc: >> general arguments are the ones remaining after the specific ones have been >> handled > > I'm afraid that it was intended the other way around! A message log must > come out as: > > <problem_general_description>: <specific_context_description> > > Although I did try doing something along your changes, I did not pursue it > because it would mess the existing enums: it makes it impossible to use the > same parameters for both the general description and the specific ones! Then the javadoc was wrong. I tried to get the code consistent with it by changing the code. We can get consistency by changing the javadoc ... > > For example a general problem is "DimensionMismatchException"; and it is > clear how to format a "general" message that describes this problem and for > this, you use up two parameters which are > 1. the wrong dimension > 2. the expected dimension > If a more "specific" message is provided, it would still need these two > parameters, but they are gone now! Yes. > > Doing it the other way around, as I think was the purpose of your change > (and of your question about "MathUserException") still has the same > shortcoming: "specific" uses up the parameters and they are not available > anymore for "general". > I think that a more flexible framework would be necessary to accomodate > that functionality (which I didn't want to suggest since a large overhaul > would again ensue). The framework is already complex enough, I would not like to have it more complex. > > The implementation in fact allowed redundant message, where "redundant" > refers to having the parameters appearing more than once. > With your change, the redundancy will appear at the point where the > exception is instantiated. E.g. if SPECIFIC_PATTERN would use two > parameters, one would need > new DimensionMismatchException(SPECIFIC_PATTERN, 1, 2, 1, 2); > while with the other constructor, it must be: > new DimensionMismatchException(1, 2); > > I think that this is highly undesirable. > > > Sorry for not having written a clearer class documentation that would have > mentions this caveat. I'll revert the change and make the javadoc match the earlier code. Sorry for having followed the wrong track. Luc > > Best, > Gilles > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
