On Wed, 25 Jun 2003, David Graham wrote:
> Logging was merely an example (probably a poor one).
Agreed. Logging was one of my examples, and it's a bad one for the sake
of this discussion. In practice no logging API I'm aware throws Runtime or
checked Exceptions, but silently fail as far as the
>
> In many cases that a database operation fails the next layer just cares
> that it gets notified of the failure and logs it (you could also have
> subclasses of MyException that indicate more specific failure types).
> MyException is allowing other layers to be independent of the persistence
>
vid Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:58 PM
> Subject: Re: Checked vs Runtime exceptions
>
>
> > --- Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > This
uot;David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 4:58 PM
Subject: Re: Checked vs Runtime exceptions
> --- Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This may be the "correct solu
--- Ryan Hoegg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This may be the "correct solution" in some of your eyes, but it is far
> too much overhead for most programmers who want to use logging. If my
> database server is down or the logging directory can not be found when I
>
> want to log something, my app
This may be the "correct solution" in some of your eyes, but it is far
too much overhead for most programmers who want to use logging. If my
database server is down or the logging directory can not be found when I
want to log something, my application code is not the right place to
handle that
ot;David Graham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 1:16 AM
Subject: RE: Checked vs Runtime exceptions
> You missed the correct solution in your logging
> example. Obviously, variou
Checked exeptions look very usefull for API designers and useless for API
users, doe's not it ?
> You missed the correct solution in your logging
> example. Obviously, various implementations will
> throw different sets of exceptions so the right way to
> handle it is to create a checked Logg
You missed the correct solution in your logging
example. Obviously, various implementations will
throw different sets of exceptions so the right way to
handle it is to create a checked LoggingException and
throw that from the log methods. The implementations
will wrap their exceptions in LoggingE
I'm not sure that "ownership" necessarily enters into it, but here's some
concrete examples:
Consider a simple logging API:
interface Log {
void debug(String message);
void info(String message);
void fatal(String message);
}
One implementation of that interface might write the output to st
> > I see his proposed technique as being useful in the case where we own
> > layers A and C, and need to get through layer B in the cleanest way,
> > where layer B doesn't expose a proper middleware understanding of
> > exception handling. I would not want to see new middleware use his
> > propos
> |
> |To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL PROTECT
|
|To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <[EMAIL
PROTECTED]> |
|cc:
> I see his proposed technique as being useful in the case where we own
> layers
> A and C, and need to get through layer B in the cleanest way, where
> layer B
> doesn't expose a proper middleware understanding of exception handling.
> I
> would not want to see new middleware use his proposal as
David,
>>
http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/stories/2003/04/01/JavasCheckedExceptionsWe
reAMistake.html
>> Although I don't entirely agree with the analysis, I do agree that the
>> proposed technique can be useful. Is this exception going to be added
>> somewhere to Jakarta-Commons for general us
--- "Noel J. Bergman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> re:
>
http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/stories/2003/04/01/JavasCheckedExceptionsWe
> reAMistake.html
>
> Although I don't entirely agree with the analysis, I do agree that the
> proposed technique can be useful. Is this exception going to be adde
re:
http://radio.weblogs.com/0122027/stories/2003/04/01/JavasCheckedExceptionsWe
reAMistake.html
Although I don't entirely agree with the analysis, I do agree that the
proposed technique can be useful. Is this exception going to be added
somewhere to Jakarta-Commons for general use? Where will i
17 matches
Mail list logo
