Mikhail Loenko wrote: > For the example I've started this thread with it seems that complying > the spec is > more appropriate there. But probably there are other examples that > caused that the doc was worded the given way > > George and Tim could you please comment?
What is the concrete example? e.g. are these checked exceptions, ... ? or NPE vs. IAE ... Regards, Tim > 2006/6/30, Paulex Yang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: >> Anton Avtamonov wrote: >> > On 6/30/06, Mikhail Loenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> But section "Exception-throwing compatibility" says that exceptions >> >> are different >> >> and we aim "to be fully compartible with the RI" "by matching the >> >> exception characteristics of each method". >> > >> > I believe that it is for "However, in most cases the specification >> > does not describe all possible exceptions that may be thrown" case >> > only. >> > In case the spec is complete and not looks like a bug I would vote to >> > follow the spec. >> +1 from me. >> > >> > Wishes, >> >> >> -- >> Paulex Yang >> China Software Development Lab >> IBM >> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> 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] > > -- Tim Ellison ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) IBM Java technology centre, UK. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
