On Thu, Feb 03, 2011 at 06:11:19PM -0500, Phil Steitz wrote:
> On 2/3/11 5:02 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote:
> >>>> [...]
> >>> It seems the thread asking for help on the exception API design is going
> >>> to be fruitful, and it starts well with interesting ideas. I guess some
> >>> of these ideas will change again our view and we will converge
> >>> (hopefully not throwing an exception ourselves ...) to a stable design
> >>> for 3.0. It seems to me that the switch to unchecked exceptions is
> >>> supported by almost all participants to this thread, so this part is
> >>> probably already stabilized.
> >>>
> >>> I doubt we can do anything about it for 2.2 and waiting first for the
> >>> rest of the discussion to stabilize (no hierarchy/small hierarchy/large
> >>> hierarchy, specific getters/general context map ...) would push 2.2 too
> >>> far.
> >>>
> >>> I would like to freeze 2.2 as it is now in the repository and get it out.
> >>>
> >>> What do you think ?
> >>>
> >> +1 for getting the release out. Given that we are not sure how things
> >> are going to end up in 3.0, we should remove the deprecations.
> > Which things? Which deprecations?
> The exceptions classes: DimensionMismatchException,
> FunctionEvaluationException,
> MathException, MathRuntimeException,
> MaxIterationsExceededException. Since we are still not sure what
> exactly we are going to do in 3.0, we should not tell users
> something in 2.2 and then change, so if we want to release now, we
> should remove these deprecations.
-1 for removing those deprecations.
Nobody gave any new argument in favour of CM having checked exceptions.
What exceptions we have in "trunk" cannot be qualified with the phrase
"large hierarchy". Nobody within CM active developers expressed a preference
for a "no hierarchy". We agreed on a singly rooted hierarchy (having
preferred it over reusing several Java standard exceptions as multiple
roots).
Nobody among the new parties to the discussion expressed anything concerning
the specific problem of "FunctionEvaluationException".[1]
The (new) issue of adding the "map" feature to the exceptions can be dealt
with as I proposed in a previous post.
Thus, unless I missed some points, I don't see anything that will change
with respect to what should be removed from 2.2.
Regards,
Gilles
[1] The consensus about this exception was to replace it with the
"MathUserException" class. In my view, such a class is not more
meaningful than a "FunctionEvaluationException" but since some have
expressed that they would feel more comfortable with it, it was
mentioned in the Javadoc (and "throws" clauses) in place of the old,
checked, "FunctionEvaluationException". Now if you'd prefer to have
this exception place-holder be renamed "FunctionEvaluationException",
I don't oppose it, as long as it is unchecked. [Discussing this further
doesn't make any sense, given that nobody can come up with a practical
example showing the necessity for such an exception.
I thought that the last post by Luc on this subject had reconciled the
viewpoints, but either you or I must have misunderstood it.]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
