[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: NYIException
From: |
David Holmes |
Subject: |
RE: NYIException |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Sep 2003 10:29:03 +1000 |
Stephen Crawley wrote:
> I agree. We should not be subclassing Error, or one of its
> descendents.
> Error is reserved for things that an application has no hope in hell
> of recovering from.
Seems to me that this is a RuntimeException then. Only an application
that is being written for Classpath will be able to take alternative
action if core functionality is missing. Any other application will
just have to throw up its hands.
It should *NOT* be a subclass of an existing exception type that has
well defined semantics and is likely to be caught in general
applications - like UnsupportedOperationException. I agree with Jeroen
that not being implemented when it should be, is quite distinct from
not supporting an optional operation.
David Holmes
- Re: NYIException, (continued)
- RE: NYIException, Jeroen Frijters, 2003/09/27
- RE: NYIException, Jeroen Frijters, 2003/09/27
- RE: NYIException, Jeroen Frijters, 2003/09/28
- RE: NYIException, Andrew Haley, 2003/09/28
- Re: NYIException, Stephen Crawley, 2003/09/28
- RE: NYIException,
David Holmes <=
- Re: NYIException, Per Bothner, 2003/09/28
- RE: NYIException, David Holmes, 2003/09/28
- Re: NYIException, Dalibor Topic, 2003/09/28
- RE: NYIException, David Holmes, 2003/09/28
- Re: NYIException, Dalibor Topic, 2003/09/28
- RE: NYIException, David Holmes, 2003/09/28
- Re: NYIException, Dalibor Topic, 2003/09/28
- Re: NYIException, Per Bothner, 2003/09/28
- NotYetImplementedError [Was: NYIException], Etienne Gagnon, 2003/09/28
- RE: NotYetImplementedError [Was: NYIException], David Holmes, 2003/09/28