P.S. What if depending on the reason RI throws different subclass
of what is in the spec? Are we going to explore all possible combinations?
2006/5/11, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
What is the reason for prohibiting throwing a sub-class?
Every existing try... catch construction will work
Do we really want to convert all tests like
try {
do something
fail();
} catch (SomeException e) {
//expected
}
to something like
try {
do something
fail();
} catch (SomeException e) {
assertEquals(SomeException.class, e.getClass());
}
Thanks,
Mikhail
2006/5/11, Geir Magnusson Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
> George Harley wrote:
>
> >
> > * Little old me thinks that there *is* a problem here but that the
> > solution is to do as the RI does and throw exceptions with the very same
> > runtime type as the RI. That's based on my interpretation of the
> > exception-throwing compatibility guidelines [2], in particular the
> > fragment "Harmony class library code should throw exceptions of the same
> > type as the RI".
>
> +1
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
