christian.muel...@nvoe.at ha scritto:
A big +1 one for this proposal, having our own
FeatureAccessException with a Constructor
FeatureAccessException(Exception ex).
We actually always had that, DataSourceException, but for
some reason people decided not to use it anymore.
Honestly no
Hy Ben, I am also bored with checked exceptions, but how to handle
error situations ? Mostly, and exception is raised during IO. If I
look at the java sdk, it is very unlucky that you have to catch an
IOException if you work with Byte Streams. This is a trade off of the
java stream design.
-1 ** (2*n - 1) for me (where n is a natural number).
Now, what about an SQLException with an IOException as its cause? Or
vice versa?
In my experience, developers designing their own exception hierarchy is
a bad sign ...
If this news exception is checked the first thing that is going to
On 25/06/10 14:06, christian.muel...@nvoe.at wrote:
I see to possibilities
1) Having our own checked exceptions
2) Having no checked exceptions and use runtime exceptions.
I like (2). How about RuntimeException?
For 2) it would be nice to have our own runtime exception class like
Ben Caradoc-Davies ha scritto:
I am happy for libraries to throw exceptions, I just dislike the
language micromanaging my handling of them.
See this comment from Florence:
hmm.. may be or may be it is related to issue ben just raised
regarding no ioexception being catch in feature
Hi,
every day I build Geotools, and every day I get this:
[INFO]
[ERROR] BUILD ERROR
[INFO]
[INFO] Failed to resolve artifact.
No versions are
We already have DataSourceException that meets this need Christian.
it is a checked exception however; I think what Ben is getting at is that we
should:
- make an unchecked exception
- add it to our library where needed
Jody
On 25/06/2010, at 3:51 PM, christian.muel...@nvoe.at wrote:
A big
Jody Garnett ha scritto:
We already have DataSourceException that meets this need Christian.
it is a checked exception however; I think what Ben is getting at is that we
should:
- make an unchecked exception
- add it to our library where needed
+1 on adding a similar chained runtime
Ben I will try to assist. A soon you make I patch I will check on other sdks.
Quoting Ben Caradoc-Davies ben.caradoc-dav...@csiro.au:
On 24/06/10 20:53, christian.muel...@nvoe.at wrote:
H i Ben, this discussion stopped without a result. What are your
next steps ?
No, it stopped with the
Add support for parametric VirtualTable in JDBC stores
--
Key: GEOT-3158
URL: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-3158
Project: GeoTools
Issue Type: Improvement
Components: data
Hi,
I've just attached to http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/GEOT-3158
adding support for parameters in sql views.
Given there has been quite some discussion on the list I though
to give everybody notice about it.
I've tried to strike a compromise about the parameter validation
by rolling a very
We have been supporting the deprecated syntax for the geometry relationships:
intersect touch cross
OGC corrected these syntax by the following
intersects touches crosses
We have been maintaining the old syntax since 2.6.1.
I would like unsupport the old syntax for 2.7.x
Is there any
Hello everyone,
recently, I have updated the syntax for id predicate
The old syntax is:
ID IN ('river.1', 'river.2')
The new syntax is:
IN ('river.1', 'river.2')
or if you have an integer type as fid:
IN (300, 301)
etc
In the future, if someone uses the old syntax the following warning
My next step will be to submit bug fixes for the most egregious HashMap
assumptions, referring to this discussion.
looks like the right thing to do imho.
Cheers!
Gabriel
--
ThinkGeek and WIRED's GeekDad team up for
Thanks Mauricio:
I have updated the udig page here:
- http://udig.refractions.net/confluence/display/EN/Common+Query+Language
I am not sure about the integer type as fid; since for features we always turn
the results into a string; usually by prefixing the type name.
Jody
On 25/06/2010, at
On 25/06/2010, at 5:47 PM, Andrea Aime wrote:
+1 on adding a similar chained runtime exception to iterators, better than
nothing.
I will try and cook up a patch / proposal.
However I have a dreaded insight; for our use case of using a while loop: you
asked how often people need to do a try
16 matches
Mail list logo
