LOL indeed :) go for your proposed solution, sounds nice anyway :)
alles gute, -Simo http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ http://twitter.com/simonetripodi http://www.99soft.org/ On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Benedikt Ritter <benerit...@googlemail.com> wrote: > I just realized, that we cannot call a method > MappedPropertyAccessor.for(String key) - "for" is a reserved keyword > ;-) > > How about: > MappedPropertyAcessor.forKey(String key) and > ArgumentsAcessor.with(Argument... Arguments) > > Benedikt > > 2012/6/16 Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org>: >> +1 to James for both topics, >> >> let's start from a basic exception - naming proposals are welcome. >> >> I'll create the wiki page later after dinner - that WE is too much >> sunny to stay at home ;) >> best, >> -Simo >> >> http://people.apache.org/~simonetripodi/ >> http://simonetripodi.livejournal.com/ >> http://twitter.com/simonetripodi >> http://www.99soft.org/ >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 5:48 PM, James Carman >> <ja...@carmanconsulting.com> wrote: >>> It shouldn't. If you're catching the superclass (for instance >>> BeanUtilsReflectionException) and later we start to throw >>> BeanUtilsInstantiationException which extends >>> BeanUtilsReflectionException, I don't think you'll run into problems. >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Benedikt Ritter >>> <benerit...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>> 2012/6/15 James Carman <ja...@carmanconsulting.com>: >>>>> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Benedikt Ritter >>>>> <benerit...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>>>>> - Wrapper Exceptions: I thing we should discuss, how a exception >>>>>> hierarchy could look like. I'll make a suggestion ASAP. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't want to duplicate the hierarchy. I would say start with a >>>>> generic exception type for now. If folks ask for more specific >>>>> subtypes later, we can add them. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Would adding more specific RuntimeExceptions later break bc? I think >>>> no, because RuntimeExceptions don't have to be part of the method >>>> signature. But I'm not sure :-) >>>> >>>> thanks, >>>> Benedikt >>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> 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 >>>> >>> >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> 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 >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > 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
