Re: RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-13 Thread Hans
Thx for your replies, guys! By following the link to Orcale's docs I learned that the *throws *statement belongs to the public interface: These exceptions are as much a part of that method's programming interface as its parameters and return value. If this was true, the implementation would

Re: RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-13 Thread Jens
The docs talk about checked exceptions. These are exceptions that extend Exception and not RuntimeException. A checked exception is part of the API as you can not throw a checked exception without defining a throws clause on a method. Also you must use a try catch block when you want to call a

RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-10 Thread Hans
Using GWT 2.5.0 and Eclipse Juno I'm declaring a *throws RuntimeException*inside a method signature. Thought that this should force implementing methods to declare this as well but Eclipse doesn't complain on not doing so. Is this by design (of Java and/or GWT)? If so: what's the whole purpose

Re: RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-10 Thread Hans
Furthermore, even declaring different throws statements in the interface, the async one and the implementing class doesn't even cause any warning: all by design? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Web Toolkit group. To view this discussion on

Re: RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-10 Thread Hans
Quick guess: maybe the throws declaration only forces the client to handle the exception? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Web Toolkit group. To view this discussion on the web visit

Re: RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-10 Thread Hans
Quick guess: maybe the throws declaration only forces the client to handle the exception? However it doesn't make sense to throw different exceptions inside the implementation (so they should be bound to the throws decalration in the interface), does it? -- You received this message because

Re: RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-10 Thread Jens
When you declare an exception (checked or unchecked) in an interface it means that anyone who uses this interface should be prepared to handle this exception but it does not mean that every implementation of that interface must throw this exception. Maybe an implementation exists that simply do

Re: RPC interface declares throws statement, server side implementation doesn't complain about not having it

2012-11-10 Thread Abraham Lin
This is specified by Java and is by design. The rationale is here: http://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/essential/exceptions/runtime.html -Abraham -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Google Web Toolkit group. To view this discussion on the web visit