2008/3/17, Greg Reddin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > On Sat, Mar 15, 2008 at 10:48 AM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Log: > > TILES-253 > > Reorganized exceptions: now TilesException is a RuntimeException. > > Created new specific exceptions. > > I haven't had time to fully investigate this, so I apologize if I > misunderstand. But I'm not real comfortable with the idea of > completely removing checked exceptions and making everything a runtime > exception. I understand the need to support runtime exceptions and am > not opposed to creating a TilesRuntimeException or something of the > like, but it seems like maybe there are still parts of the API that > might need to declare checked exceptions.
Sorry if I seem rude, but I think that the choice of using only checked exceptions was a wrong choice. If you take a look on where TilesException (and its extended exceptions) is thrown, you may notice that, in fact, they are all configuration exceptions (errors in xml files, problems with instantiations, etc.). In fact I was thinking of let all the exceptions extend a TilesRuntimeException, but when I noticed that all the exception were, in fact, "system" exceptions, I decided to transform TilesException into a RuntimeException. For example, take Hibernate, where everything may throw an unchecked exception: this helps a lot in finding bugs. The binary compatibility will be preserved, but the readability of the code is really improved. But, anyway, SVN is there also for reverting changes :-) Antonio
