Sorry Fedor, but again, I have to disagree :-) >declaring implementation-specific exception in the API thus binding API >to it's particular implementation
It's not an implementation-specific exception. All the contrary, it's an API-interface-specific exception. And it does not bind the API to it's implementation. All the contrary, it shields the API from any changes to its implementation. -- Mathieu -----Original Message----- From: Fedor Karpelevitch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: February 21, 2002 12:21 PM To: 'Turbine Developers List' Subject: RE: [vote] Standardizing OM for throwing TorqueException > Mathieu, you have my +1 to modify the Torque Java source and Velocity > templates to throw TorqueException instead of Exception. This is a > fully backwards compatible change, and we can debate at length whether > TorqueException should be a checked or unchecked exception _after_ the > change is made. > > Thanks, Dan Just to clarify: I agree that this is good (note - i did not vote against it). My point is that this solves only part of the problem - that is, throwing too generic exception, but does not solve the other problem that is, declaring implementation-specific exception in the API thus binding API to it's particular implementation. I am afraid there would have to be a second round of changes and I do not see why same job needs to be done twice. fedor. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
