The problem with Java model is that I cannot

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #143,721

by Arkadiy

2/27/04 5:30:34 PM

The problem with Java model is that I cannot

declare exception "not thrown" in the implementation of interface. I do not think a solution is possible within the confines of static type checking, and that makes Java's checked exceptions bad.

--

The number of the beast - vi vi vi
--[link|http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?QuotesOnComputers|Delexa Jones]

Post #143,723

by dshellman

2/27/04 5:37:26 PM

Re: The problem with Java model is that I cannot

I'm not sure why you think that's "bad." I'm assuming it's because, since your implementation of the interface doesn't actually throw the exception, that it would be nice to not have to declare it. However, the client of that interface should view your implemetation as just that interface, in which case, the designer of the interface made the decision that it should be part of the signature (whether they were correct or not is another thing).

In other words, a checked exception in a signature helps define that method, regardless of whether it's used or not (just like parameters can be ignored, but are still there). My point is that it may be the poor design of the interface, or it may be that the designer wanted the user of that interface to be aware (and effectively force them to handle the interface a certain way). I don't see it as a problem with the concept of checked exceptions, though.

Dan

Exception Handling Policy - (JimWeirich) - (48) - Feb. 26, 2004, 12:20:25 AM EST

Possibly it depends on what level of code you are writing... - (Simon_Jester) - (38) - Feb. 26, 2004, 08:20:05 AM EST

Ditto. - (admin) - (37) - Feb. 26, 2004, 09:24:37 AM EST

Because checked exceptions are STOOPID! - (tuberculosis) - (35) - Feb. 26, 2004, 10:23:11 AM EST

One reason I like Spring Framework - (admin) - (1) - Feb. 26, 2004, 10:43:49 AM EST

Absolutely - (bluke) - Feb. 26, 2004, 03:55:45 PM EST

Re: Because checked exceptions are STOOPID! - (dshellman) - (23) - Feb. 27, 2004, 04:20:44 PM EST

One respectable reason - (admin) - (13) - Feb. 27, 2004, 04:36:46 PM EST

Re: One respectable reason - (dshellman) - (12) - Feb. 27, 2004, 05:09:53 PM EST

The problem with Java model is that I cannot - (Arkadiy) - (1) - Feb. 27, 2004, 05:30:34 PM EST

Re: The problem with Java model is that I cannot - (dshellman) - Feb. 27, 2004, 05:37:26 PM EST

But that would (i.e, *does*) defeat the whole purpose! - (CRConrad) - (3) - Feb. 27, 2004, 07:01:59 PM EST

ICLRPD (new thread) - (drewk) - Feb. 29, 2004, 12:25:47 AM EST

Re: But that would (i.e, *does*) defeat the whole purpose! - (dshellman) - (1) - March 1, 2004, 07:37:54 AM EST

Sorry, either I don't get your meaning, or you didn't mine. - (CRConrad) - March 1, 2004, 09:10:07 AM EST

What ends up happening ... - (bluke) - (5) - Feb. 29, 2004, 01:33:07 AM EST

Re: What ends up happening ... - (dshellman) - (4) - March 1, 2004, 07:38:49 AM EST

Re: What ends up happening ... - (tuberculosis) - March 1, 2004, 12:18:27 PM EST

You didn't answer the question ... - (bluke) - (2) - March 1, 2004, 03:02:14 PM EST

Re: You didn't answer the question ... - (dshellman) - (1) - March 2, 2004, 09:13:43 AM EST

A number of comments - (bluke) - March 3, 2004, 05:05:16 AM EST

We already discussed this - (ben_tilly) - (8) - Feb. 27, 2004, 06:38:32 PM EST

Re: We already discussed this - (dshellman) - (7) - March 1, 2004, 07:25:21 AM EST

Blame the tool - (tuberculosis) - March 1, 2004, 12:27:25 PM EST

You're right, that is unfortunate - (ben_tilly) - (5) - March 1, 2004, 02:46:24 PM EST

Re: You're right, that is unfortunate - (dshellman) - (4) - March 2, 2004, 09:23:49 AM EST

You have to balance benefit/cost - (ben_tilly) - (3) - March 3, 2004, 11:28:42 AM EST

s/Knuth/Dijkstra/ - (a6l6e6x) - (2) - March 3, 2004, 10:45:32 PM EST

I had it right the first time - (ben_tilly) - (1) - March 3, 2004, 10:49:38 PM EST

I stand corrected then. - (a6l6e6x) - March 3, 2004, 11:06:24 PM EST

Re: Because checked exceptions are STOOPID! - (dshellman) - (8) - March 1, 2004, 01:07:30 PM EST

Hmm... - (CRConrad) - March 1, 2004, 04:30:13 PM EST

One phrase says it all. - (Arkadiy) - (6) - March 1, 2004, 04:44:39 PM EST

Caught my eye too - (tuberculosis) - March 1, 2004, 07:07:04 PM EST

Re: One phrase says it all. - (dshellman) - (4) - March 2, 2004, 09:04:06 AM EST

I remain unconvinced - (tuberculosis) - March 2, 2004, 09:47:13 AM EST

A Further Question on the Code Example - (JimWeirich) - (1) - March 2, 2004, 01:20:53 PM EST

Re: A Further Question on the Code Example - (dshellman) - March 2, 2004, 02:59:24 PM EST

Bad for class libraries? - (Arkadiy) - March 3, 2004, 07:44:09 AM EST

Re: Ditto. - (JimWeirich) - Feb. 26, 2004, 05:17:05 PM EST

I meant Exception the class - (bluke) - (7) - Feb. 26, 2004, 03:51:29 PM EST

Don't catch null pointer exceptions? - (JimWeirich) - (6) - Feb. 26, 2004, 05:14:57 PM EST

In development yes - (bluke) - (5) - Feb. 27, 2004, 01:02:37 AM EST

Re: In development yes - (JimWeirich) - (4) - Feb. 27, 2004, 12:35:18 PM EST

Agreed - (bluke) - (3) - Feb. 29, 2004, 01:25:04 AM EST

So wouldn't the remedy be... - (CRConrad) - (2) - Feb. 29, 2004, 04:03:57 PM EST

cf. Spring Framework :-) -NT - (admin) - Feb. 29, 2004, 04:51:06 PM EST

I agree ... - (bluke) - March 1, 2004, 05:36:33 AM EST

Another reason to catch specifics - (jb4) - Feb. 27, 2004, 05:49:20 PM EST

iwethey.org

Better than a kick to the head with a frozen mukluk.
70 ms