[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: NYIException
From: |
Andy Walter |
Subject: |
Re: NYIException |
Date: |
Fri, 26 Sep 2003 18:31:04 +0200 |
Hi Michael,
On Friday 26 September 2003 17:56, Michael Koch wrote:
> I'm for UnsupportedOperationException too because it exists already
> and dont have to invent something new.
>
> A reason against using it is that some methods return UOE by design in
> some situations. That means that i may not be clear in any case if
> the method throwns an exception because its unimplementd or because
> of other reasons.
How about
NotYetImplementedException extends UnsupportedOperationException
then to distinguish between the above cases? IMHO, it would be quite useful
for the project being able to say "we are able to run any JDK 1.2 programme".
A script that has to know about which method might throw
UnsupportedOperationException and which shouldn't could never be really
reliable.
Cheers,
Andy.
--
aicas GmbH
Haid-und-Neu-Straße 18 * 76131 Karlsruhe
http://www.aicas.com
Tel: +49-721-663 968-24; Fax: +49-721-663 968-94
- Re: NYIException, (continued)
- Re: NYIException, Michael Koch, 2003/09/25
- Re: NYIException, Arnaud Vandyck, 2003/09/25
- Re: NYIException, Ingo Prötel, 2003/09/25
- Re: NYIException, Etienne Gagnon, 2003/09/25
- Re: NYIException, Brian Jones, 2003/09/25
- Re: NYIException, Andy Walter, 2003/09/26
- Re: NYIException, Sascha Brawer, 2003/09/26
- Re: NYIException, Andy Walter, 2003/09/26
- Re: NYIException, Sascha Brawer, 2003/09/26
- Re: NYIException, Michael Koch, 2003/09/26
- Re: NYIException,
Andy Walter <=
- Re: NYIException, Ricky Clarkson, 2003/09/29
RE: NYIException, Regier Avery J, 2003/09/26
Re: NYIException, Dalibor Topic, 2003/09/27
RE: NYIException, Jeroen Frijters, 2003/09/27
RE: NYIException, Jeroen Frijters, 2003/09/27