On 04/08/2007, at 4:07 AM, Kevin Menard wrote:
How much longer is 1.4 going to be the target platform?
Interesting because I am in the middle of a process of taking our
biggest piece of software (around 100,000 lines of code) and
generifying [1] it for 1.5. The decision was made to abando
On 04/08/2007, at 2:41 AM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
For what it's worth, when I write my own code these days, I use either
NullPointerException("variable-name") or IllegalArgumentException("why
it's illegal")
I also use IllegalArgumentException quite a bit in my own code. And I
think it mak
I wouldn't see a problem with making 3.0 require Java 1.5.
JPA already requires Java 1.5.
On 8/3/07, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Another one to ponder. It should be my last today ;-)
>
> According to [1], Java 5 was released nearly three years ago. At the
> time of its release, it
Another one to ponder. It should be my last today ;-)
According to [1], Java 5 was released nearly three years ago. At the
time of its release, it was agreed that targeting 1.4 was still
necessary. 1.4 had only been out for two years at that point. Java 6
has been out for over half a year.
Ho
Sorry for the email storm. I thought my 3.0 upgrade had gone smoothly,
but it turns out that there were hidden test failures due to someone
changing some code on me.
As I'm coming across some of these things that worked in 2.0.3 and fail
in 3.0, I'm wondering to what degree things are supposed to
On Aug 3, 2007, at 7:55 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
Then I suppose this would raise another topic. JUnit 3 is a bit of a
boar for testing exception. You basically have to try, catch, fail.
TestNG has a standard facility for testing for expected
exceptions. My
guess is that JUnit4 does as well
> -Original Message-
> From: Andrus Adamchik [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:38 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Exceptions . . .
> For things like argument checking in the user-facing API,
> IllegalArgumentException seems more appropriate than
>
I'm sitting here migrating a set of data generated from a php
application, stored in mysql.
One of the oddities of the data is that there is a particular date
field with a lot of 0's...
THe field allows null, but apparently, the way that the php app was
built, when this date
was unspecified,
For what it's worth, when I write my own code these days, I use either
NullPointerException("variable-name") or IllegalArgumentException("why
it's illegal")
On 8/3/07, Andrus Adamchik <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Aug 3, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
>
> > I imagine throwing
> > Cayen
On Aug 3, 2007, at 7:18 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
I imagine throwing
CayenneException is preferred, but given that it's a checked
exception,
that could mean rewriting interfaces.
We certainly DO NOT want every method in Cayenne to throw checked
exceptions. Then it will be as "usable" as JD
If it's a code error rather than a data error, I don't see a problem
with throwing an NPE. I'd save CayenneException for things that are
environment-related.
Unit tests would be great.
On 8/3/07, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Mike Kienenberger [
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:07 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Exceptions . . .
>
> Yes, I'm not saying we do it right. I'm just saying we correct things
> as we find them. I know of at least
imagine it's been done this
way as a performance benefit,
No, probably just laziness :-)
Andrus
On Aug 3, 2007, at 7:04 PM, Kevin Menard wrote:
-Original Message-
From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:59 AM
To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
Subj
Yes, I'm not saying we do it right. I'm just saying we correct things
as we find them. I know of at least one instance where I was hit by
something like this and the fix used was to detect the error at the
initial point of failure.
On 8/3/07, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Ori
+1
I don't think there's any disagreement on that.
Andrus
On Aug 3, 2007, at 6:58 PM, Mike Kienenberger wrote:
In my opinion, it's best to trap the error as soon as possible. As
far as I remember, that's our standard practice, and as we come across
items like this, we correct them.
On 8/3/
In my opinion, it's best to trap the error as soon as possible. As
far as I remember, that's our standard practice, and as we come across
items like this, we correct them.
On 8/3/07, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I know this has come up before and some debate goes on and then no
> d
> -Original Message-
> From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:59 AM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Exceptions . . .
>
> In my opinion, it's best to trap the error as soon as possible. As
> far as I remember, that's our standard p
I know this has come up before and some debate goes on and then no
decision is really made. Do we want to improve exception reporting?
I've always found this to be a weak point in Cayenne's game.
Fortunately, I've become more comfortable with loading up the source
code and stepping through things
> -Original Message-
> From: Kevin Menard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:02 PM
> To: dev@cayenne.apache.org
> Subject: RE: NPE in DataDomainQueryAction.java
>
> This may have been around since 2.0.x. Like I said, with the two
> changes at once, I haven't ded
Hello.
Thank you for looking into the issue. That patch is ok for me.
Regards,
- Tore.
On Aug 2, 2007, at 20:41 , Andrus Adamchik wrote:
Finally had a chance to look at the code (instead of suggesting
random things :-)). I think a patch like that would work (in fact I
tested it with POJO
20 matches
Mail list logo
