If it's a code error rather than a data error, I don't see a problem
with throwing an NPE. I'd save CayenneException for things that are
environment-related.
Unit tests would be great.
On 8/3/07, Kevin Menard <kmenar..ervprise.com> wrote:
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:mkienen..mail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 12:07 PM
> > To: de..ayenne.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Exceptions . . .
> >
> > Yes, I'm not saying we do it right. I'm just saying we correct things
> > as we find them. I know of at least one instance where I was hit by
> > something like this and the fix used was to detect the error at the
> > initial point of failure.
>
> Gotcha. Are there any guidelines on this? I imagine throwing
> CayenneException is preferred, but given that it's a checked exception,
> that could mean rewriting interfaces. I'm a fan of throwing unchecked
> exceptions if we can't do anything about the problem anyway.
>
> Also, should we be adding tests to check the exceptions are actually
> thrown and pair them up with fail() calls? Or, has the approach been to
> just introduce the exception and just make sure the existing test suite
> passes?
>
> --
> Kevin
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Fri Aug 03 2007 - 12:29:40 EDT