On 2 February 2011 00:12, Gilles Sadowski <gil...@harfang.homelinux.org> wrote: >> Here is a probably too simple example: >> >> com.example defines IOException >> com.example.input uses IOException >> com.example.output uses IOException > > Well, I don't see that as obviously better than storing all exceptions in an > "exception" package. I find the latter tidier. > > The problems arises when one thinks that some exception is only needed in > one package: > com.example.foo uses and defines FooException > Then one discovers > com.example.bar also uses FooException > > Add a few more exceptions and soon people are searching the exceptions > definitions all over the place, or create new ones that duplicate > functionality that already exists in some other package.
I too would consider an exceptions package bad practice. Exceptions should be located in the highest level package that they might be used from. "tidiness" is generally a bad metric for organising package structure. Stephen --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
