Hi everyone, If no one objects, I'd like to throw subclass of SocketException in native code to fix this problem. Any suggestions, please kindly let me know. Thanks!
On 7/18/06, Andrew Zhang <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Seems most people prefer subclass to SocketException with ErrorCodeException cause. Does anyone prefer the latter? or both are acceptable? I think we'd better made an agreement about this issue. Mikhail, how do you think about it? Which one do you prefer? :) I'll fix Harmony-815 once decision is made. Thanks! On 7/18/06, Alexey Varlamov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > IMHO, throwing a subclass certainly fits to specification and can > hardly break compatibility with RI. I consider this is the proper > workaround for now. > Just my $0.02 :) > > -- > Alexey Varlamov > > > > In this case, I guess if we set the cause to null when catching the > > SocketException will properly solve the problem. However it seems > > difficult as Throwable.initCause() can be called only once. > > > > If throwing a subclass may also break compatibility guideline, I still > > suggest return value, though it may break the current > > infrastructure(currently, all errors throw exception), it is still > easy > > to deal with, only some of operation, read/write, require a little > > change, and we no longer need "try...catch" in Java code > > > > BTW, I find the code shall also deal with InterruptIOException. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > Terms of use : http://incubator.apache.org/harmony/mailing.html > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
-- Andrew Zhang China Software Development Lab, IBM
