Hello. > > [...] > > > > Do I understand correctly that, if we go down that road, there would only > > be a single exception (every failure will raise the same exception)? > > No, not at all, but your exceptions would provide all the same mechanism to > add valuable information up the stack. Have a look at the implementation of > ContextException and ContextRuntimeException. It's quite hollow, the real > code is in DefaultExceptionContext i.e. you could easily create also a > IllegalArgumentContectException derived from IllegalArgumentException. And > since the ExceptionContext is only an interface you might even replace ther > DefaultExceptionContext with something like LOcalizedExceptionContext that > has additional language support. > > > If the aim is only for printing the whole context, it is indeed very > > flexible (adding a lot of info is easy). But if the caller wants to trap > > and act on a particular condition (a part of the context), isn't it more > > difficult than catching a specific exception? > > As I said, keep the hierarchy, but you might be able to trim it down more > easily, because you don't have to invent a new one simply because you want > to provide an additional information.
Ah, maybe that I see a use-case in CM: the 3 exceptions "DimensionMismatch", "MultiDimensionMismatchException" and "MatrixDimensionMismatch" might be trimmed to a single one. However, the other problem which I'm still suspecting is that ther wouldn't be specific accessors anymore like we have now in "MatrixDimensionMismatch": getWrongRowDimension() getExpectedRowDimension() getWrongColumnDimension() getExpectedColumnDimension() > > [...] Thanks for the clarification, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
