Just for the sake of multiple choice, what about: - keyedBy - keyedTo - withKey - of - at
? Matt On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 7:19 AM, Simone Tripodi <simonetrip...@apache.org> wrote: > 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 > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
