On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 20:56:49 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Dan:
>technically, javac will complain about an 'ambiguous class' and won't
>compile (which makes sense), but you're right that still we should keep
>the namespace in mind...
True, but that wasn't exactly what I was
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:13:44 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Hey Dan:
>
>>perhaps all exceptions in javax.usb should be prefixed with 'Usb'...
>
> That's not such a bad idea. If a developer is working with
>another developers code, it can
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 19:13:44 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hey Dan:
>perhaps all exceptions in javax.usb should be prefixed with 'Usb'...
That's not such a bad idea. If a developer is working with
another developers code, it can help them to better understand where
the exception
On a related note to the (Usb)NotActiveException discussion, the
control-type UsbIrp is currently called ControlUsbIrp; but a suggestion
was made to rename it to UsbControlIrp. This keeps consistency of the Usb
prefix. While we're at it though, let's review all the names:
UsbHub
UsbPort
UsbD
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:31:03 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> It would be best to have something in javax.usb., but with a
>different name (perhaps USBNotActiveException). This is for two
>reasons:
>
> 1) As some users will want to u
On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:31:03 -0500 (EST), [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>One final issue: I was using javax.usb.NotActiveException for certain
>methods. However, there is also a java.io.NotActiveException. I had
>changed to use that Exception, but it may be better to use a
>javax.usb.NotActiveExcept
One of the known todos is to create more meaningful USB-specific
UsbExceptions. While talking to a coworker, we discussed what to do about
platform-specific errors, i.e. those that aren't USB-specific. We came up
with
PlatformException extends UsbException
{
public Exception getException();
