+1 for softening all exceptions. The fact is, what reasonable recourse is there to the user if a file operation fails? That's what checked exceptions were supposed to be for -- mandate handling code. It's tough to say we need to mandate handling these errors.
Paul On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:49 AM, Ralph Goers <ralph.go...@dslextreme.com> wrote: > > On Oct 25, 2010, at 8:10 AM, James Carman wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Gary Gregory >> <ggreg...@seagullsoftware.com> wrote: >>> Do we want the APIs to be quieter than using java.io.File for example? Or, >>> should exceptions be thrown from similar places? >>> >> >> Definitely quieter than java.io.File! I *hate* that API for its >> checked exceptions. >> >>> I am worried that we would make all APIs "quiet" (unchecked exceptions) as >>> a opposed to really thinking where exceptions should be checked or return >>> an Boolean error code (like File mkdir) >>> >> >> I'm one of those folks who think the checked exceptions are evil, so I >> am fine with getting rid of them entirely (think about how much nicer >> your Hibernate code looks without the checked exceptions). Boolean >> returns are fine I guess. No real strong opinion on that one. >> > > I'm not in favor of changing much at this point. I'd really like to get a > release done without too many more changes. > > Ralph > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
