What do you folks think about making the exceptions extend
RuntimeException in 2.0? I really find it tedious to do try/catch
everywhere I want to ask a FileObject something (like if it exists or
not).
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail:
+1 on this issue.
I use VFS on a couple projects and this is always a bit burdensome, and on
several occasions have indeed caught and rethrew RuntimeExceptions. Even if
we can't/shouldn't soften them, what about typing them to be more specific?
Having every method throwing a FileSystemException
On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:10 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Gary Gregory
ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
Do we want the APIs to be quieter than using java.io.File for example? Or,
should exceptions be thrown from similar places?
Definitely quieter than
true =) BTW, I'll be at ApacheCon, if the VFS crew would like another warm
body to assist in getting the release out. Just let me know when/where to
be
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.comwrote:
On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:10 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Mon,
+1 for softening all exceptions. The fact is, what reasonable recourse
is there to the user if a file operation fails? That's what checked
exceptions were supposed to be for -- mandate handling code. It's
tough to say we need to mandate handling these errors.
Paul
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:49
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Ralph Goers
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I'm not in favor of changing much at this point. I'd really like to get a
release done without too many more changes.
There's a problem with that, Ralph. If we publish a 2.0, we can't
break the API later. So,
-1
At the risk of playing Devils Advocate here, what's the downside to checked
exceptions? A few extra lines of code? I can foresee a problem with
unchecked exceptions though. Imagine that you're using the API to build a
desktop application. You want to display a dialog box to the user
I agree with Mark's point about unfamiliar developers benefiting from
checked exceptions. Unlike James, I like checked exceptions =), and I have
established elegant recoveries from various resource exceptions (IO, for
example) under many use cases (at least in the enterprise arena).
What's
Very much -1 on unchecked exceptions.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:33 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
What do people typically do with those exceptions? Seriously, do you
retry stuff on a regular basis in your catch blocks?
Yes! Very much so. It's quite useful when dealing
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Filip Defoort
filip...@cirquedigital.com wrote:
Yes! Very much so. It's quite useful when dealing with stale nfs,
locked files,...
Do you implement the retry logic in every place where you need it or
do you have a helper method that takes some sort of functor
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Steven Siebert smsi...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Mark's point about unfamiliar developers benefiting from
checked exceptions. Unlike James, I like checked exceptions =), and I have
established elegant recoveries from various resource exceptions (IO, for
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:45 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:41 PM, Filip Defoort
filip...@cirquedigital.com wrote:
Yes! Very much so. It's quite useful when dealing with stale nfs,
locked files,...
Do you implement the retry logic in every
Checked exceptions throw a burden onto the developer. He is forced to
do something. Why force this burden? It assumes something SHOULD be
done for these particular errors. I don't think that's realistic
(they're OS errors -- not business errors), which is why checked
exceptions have fallen well
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Filip Defoort
filip...@cirquedigital.com wrote:
Depends. I do have a bunch of wrappers for common types of retries,
but often the remedy really is different depending on the operation
(I'm dealing a lot with search indexes, updating them and transaction
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Paul Benedict pbened...@apache.org wrote:
Checked exceptions throw a burden onto the developer. He is forced to
do something. Why force this burden? It assumes something SHOULD be
done for these particular errors. I don't think that's realistic
(they're OS
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:52 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Filip Defoort
filip...@cirquedigital.com wrote:
Depends. I do have a bunch of wrappers for common types of retries,
but often the remedy really is different depending on the
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Filip Defoort
filip...@cirquedigital.com wrote:
In my view, it is the developer's job to provide an solid experience
to the user. That includes properly dealing with underlying system
errors in the least cryptic possible way and recovering where
possible. And
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:56 AM, James Carman
ja...@carmanconsulting.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:53 PM, Filip Defoort
filip...@cirquedigital.com wrote:
In my view, it is the developer's job to provide an solid experience
to the user. That includes properly dealing with underlying
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 2:00 PM, Filip Defoort
filip...@cirquedigital.com wrote:
Well, it's my job to write proper code. Other people can do all they
want, but with just a runtime exception I wouldn't be able to do what
I'd need to do.
Again, I think you're misunderstanding my suggestion.
-Original Message-
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 08:10
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VFS] Softening the exceptions...
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Gary Gregory
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Gary Gregory
ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
So for VFS, you would prefer that all error handling be done with unchecked
exceptions?
In a nutshell, yes. So, it's a pretty easy change. You'd just change
the superclass of FileSystemException.
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Gary Gregory
ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
So for VFS, you would prefer that all error handling be done with unchecked
exceptions?
This is probably a question better asked on the user list so we can
get a feel for how people feel about it. I just
-Original Message-
From: jcar...@carmanconsulting.com [mailto:jcar...@carmanconsulting.com] On
Behalf Of James Carman
Sent: Monday, October 25, 2010 10:33
To: Commons Developers List
Subject: Re: [VFS] Softening the exceptions...
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 12:49 PM, Mark Fortner
Hi!
Am 25.10.2010 um 21:13 schrieb James Carman ja...@carmanconsulting.com:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Gary Gregory
ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com wrote:
So for VFS, you would prefer that all error handling be done with unchecked
In a nutshell, yes. So, it's a pretty easy change.
On Oct 25, 2010, at 9:01 AM, James Carman wrote:
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:49 AM, Ralph Goers
ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
I'm not in favor of changing much at this point. I'd really like to get a
release done without too many more changes.
There's a problem with that, Ralph. If
On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Ralph Goers ralph.go...@dslextreme.com wrote:
This code has been sitting here for a year. Commons Configuration would like
to do a release but cannot until VFS is released. I'd like to work on the VFS
release during the hackathon next week. If you believe you
26 matches
Mail list logo
