You're right. Today Transform task put the handler code in all catch blocks, regards type of exception. You have to do the calls manually if you what to be more precise.
The improvement suggested by Gaurav is very useful and can be done in the task (or even a Mojo). Andre -----Mensagem original----- De: sebb [mailto:seb...@gmail.com] Enviada em: quarta-feira, 8 de abril de 2009 07:46 Para: Commons Developers List Assunto: Re: Possible incubation? On 08/04/2009, gauravar...@codercorp.com <gauravar...@codercorp.com> wrote: > I think it's more valid to look at Jeha as a framework that only handles > what you ask to handle. In the case you describe, if you don't ask Jeha to > handle a certain type of exception, then that exception is simply > propagated up the stack. I don't think it interferes with the method > signature, unless i'm missing something. That may be so, but it's not mentioned in the Quick Start guide - the only examples catch Exception, and there is no indication that the Transformer task can be used to only add handlers for particular Exceptions. > Gaurav > > > > Hi Andre, > > > > Andre Dantas Rocha wrote at Dienstag, 7. April 2009 14:38: > > > >> Hi all, > >> > >> This message was originally sent to incubator list, but they suggest to > >> post it here because *maybe* the idea can fit in Commons project. > >> > >> I'm developing a framework called Jeha. The main idea is to provide easy > >> exception description and handling using annotations in methods and > >> classes > >> and some commons handlers. I believe that the idea is simple, but > >> powerful. > >> > >> The initial code and start guide of framework are here: > >> > > <http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203&package_id=294 > >> 931&release_id=650572> > >> > > http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=242203&package_id=2949 > >> 31&release_id=650572 > >> > >> I'd like to hear from community if this idea is valuable for a possible > >> incubation. > >> > >> Please let me know your opinion. > > > > It might be only me, but I see this approach a bit critical. On one hand > > you're right, writing exception code is quite tedious sometimes, but with > > your solution you wipe out any useful method signature regarding exception > > declaration. What happens if I don't wanna handle certain exception types > > or RuntimeException instances? I cannot simply rethrow from the handler. > > > > - Jörg > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
