On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 06:33:05PM -0700, Phil Steitz wrote: > On 8/29/12 3:04 PM, Gilles Sadowski wrote: > > Hello. > > > > To summarize: > > (1) Does anyone disagree with having all CM exceptions inherit > > from a new "MathRuntimeException" which itself will inherit > > from the standard "RuntimeException"? > +0 > > (2) Does anyone disagree with all exceptions being mandatorily > > advertized in the "throws" clause of methods and constructors? > > That means that for each exception explicitly instantiated in the > > body of the method, the instantiated type must appear in "throws" > > clause. > +1 - though I am OK advertising superclasses in cases where that is > appropriate (but not to the point of (3) below) > > (3) Does anyone disagree that the "throws" clause of a method could > > advertize "MathRuntimeException" for any exception not thrown by > > itself but by a method which it calls? > > That means that it is not mandatory to indicate the specific type > > for exceptions not explicitly instantiated in the body the current > > method. > -1 > In general, we should avoid that, because it is equivalent to > "throws Exception." The exceptions that a method in the public > [math] API propagates should be documented and advertised by it. > Which exceptions a method itself generates is an implementation > artifact. What is important in the API is what exceptions the > caller is going to see.
You are right. As I said, I was not sure that would be a good rule. [Also I don't think that there are many cases where exceptions are propagated from lower levels without being advertized in relation to the current context.] Thus, shall I open a JIRA ticket with the tasks of completing the "throws" clauses of all CM methods? Does someone absolutely needs this task tobe completed before releasing 3.1? [I don't think that it's possible without a huge effort from everyone.] Regards, Gilles > > Phil > > > > > > I'm not sure about point (3); it seems that it would avoid duplicating > > descriptions of lower-level preconditions for CM methods that calls other CM > > methods or advertizing something that would be an implementation detail for > > the calling method. I didn't check how often that would apply... > > At first sight, that would surely avoid that upper levels are tightly > > coupled to lower levels: if a method is modified to throw a new exception, > > methods that call it do not have to update their documentation and "throws" > > clause. > > > > > > Regards, > > Gilles --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
