Hi Benedikt,
Benedikt Ritter wrote:
> I have reverted the commit and commented why we use an anonymous subclass
> of DefaultExpectionContext. But to be honest I don't really see the point.
> Since the signature of the constructor is
>
> public ContextedRuntimeException(final String message, final Throwable
> cause, ExceptionContext context)
>
> every class that implements ExceptionContext can be passed in. Surely all
> subclasses of DefaultExceptionContext implement ExceptionContext. This is
> just how the language works...
>
> What am I missing here?
The constructor code does:
if (expectionContext == null) {
exceptionContext = new DefaultExceptionContext();
}
Therefore the difference of passing "null" or "new
DefaultExceptionContext()" is moot ... however passing "null" is tested
implicitly by all other constructors.
Basically I admit, that the test could really be improved to show that the
implementation can use an arbitrary ExceptionContext implementation (e.g. by
using a mock), but that's currently all we have ;-)
Cheers,
Jörg
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
