On Wed, Feb 02, 2011 at 08:57:10AM +0000, Stephen Colebourne wrote: > 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.
"Bad practice", "bad metric"; I don't think so. They can be used all the same when defined in a package called "exception", just as we also have a package called "util" where there is a "MathUtils" class containing functions that are potentially useful everywhere in the CM code. By the same token, you would have it placed at the top-level. In fact, it's more a matter of (possibly bad) taste, than a design issue. Regards, Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
