D'oh! Just checked SVN. Looks like my intentions, and Janne's changes, passed each other in the ether. :)
On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 8:20 PM, Andrew Jaquith <[email protected]> wrote: > Any objection to me changing the various WikiEngine.getPage() methods > so that they throw a PageNotFoundException instead of returning null? > Yeah, it's sort of a pain to do in the short term, but NOT doing it is > proving problematic in the 3.0 codebase. > > On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 2:28 PM, Janne Jalkanen > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Except that in this case, our API has defined that getPage() returns null if >> the page is not found. In JCR, however, not finding an item is considered >> to be an exception, so unless we change the way we work, it is mandatory. >> >> For all other exceptions, we catch and propagate them upwards properly. >> >> /Janne >> >> On Mar 12, 2009, at 20:24 , Foster Schucker wrote: >> >>> +1 providing something catches the exception and DOES something with it. >>> Just catching and returning null is worse. >>> >>> Harry Metske wrote: >>> >>>> +1 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 2009/3/12 Janne Jalkanen <[email protected]> >>>> >>>> >>>>> Simple enough reason: getPage(WikiName,int) is not catching the >>>>> PathNotFoundException - look at the catch clause in getPage(WikiName) >>>>> ;-). >>>>> It should do that and return null. >>>>> >>>>> My bad, sorry! >>>>> >>>>> (A general question, should we start throwing something like >>>>> PageNotFoundExceptions as opposed to returning nulls? That would >>>>> encourage a >>>>> bit safer coding and would eliminate a number of if(getPage() == null) >>>>> tests >>>>> across the codebase.) >>>>> >>>>> /Janne >>>>> >>>>> >> >> >
