Re: [jboss-dev] throws Throwable

Jason T. Greene wrote: > Carlo de Wolf wrote: >> Andrew Lee Rubinger wrote: >>> Jason T. Greene wrote: >>>> Max Rydahl Andersen wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Tim Fox wrote: >>>>>> David M. Lloyd wrote: >>>>>>> On 05/05/2009 03:02 AM, Carlo de Wolf wrote: >>>>>>>> What's the use case for having a public method: >>>>>>>> doSomething(Object someArgs...) throws Throwable ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No valid use cases exist afaik. Any method that throws >>>>>>> Throwable should die, if it's within our power to kill it. >>>>>> Declaring a method as "throws Throwable" forces the caller to >>>>>> handle the exception even if the exception/error thrown is >>>>>> unchecked. >>>>> Then do throws RuntimeException >>>>> >>>>> Error's are *nonrecoverable* since they are OutOfMemory or hard VM >>>>> errors.No client can ever recover sanely. >>>> >>>> One valid case for throwing Throwable is a generic invocation >>>> mechanism >>>> (interceptors, proxies, etc). >>> >>> Just because it's generic doesn't mean the caller can do anything >>> about it. In that case why not just "throws Exception"? >> As per javax.interceptor.InvocationContext.proceed(). >> But InvocationHandler.invoke throws a Throwable, which I think is wrong. > > IMO this is correct because the Java language allows user code to > throw errors, and an interceptor should be able to throw any exception > declared by the method it is emulating. The only alternative is to > wrap it with a special exception that gets unwrapped, but this is just > pointless copying. > I disagree: it should be: invoke(..) throws Exception. Both the user code and the invoke can throw unchecked exceptions nonetheless. It's the handling of a checked exception that doesn't fit the given method signature that gets special treatment. Ergo throws Throwable in this case is still wrong.

Carlo _______________________________________________ jboss-development mailing list jboss-development(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/jboss-development