11 Aug
2007
11 Aug
'07
9:31 p.m.
On Aug 10, 2007, at 9:55 AM, Catalin Hritcu wrote:
Hi Asiri,
On 8/10/07, Asiri Rathnayake <asiri.rathnayake(a)gmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
I agree on this not only for the reason you mention, but also because
I find the exception mechanism in XWiki very cumbersome. It seems that
having to write 3 lines of code to throw an exception causes many to
just not throw them at all.
+1000. I hate this so much... We definitely need to do proper
exception handling in 1.2.
I checked
and confluence does throw exceptions for all erroneous
situations. Also all methods in swizzle-confluence (a client-side
proxy for the confluence remote api) have a "throws Exception"
clause.
This means it makes a lot of sense to always throw an exception when
something goes topsy-turvy on the server (now the behavior
depends on
mood of the writer of each method, and we don't check for many error
conditions).
I think we should also throw the generic java.lang.Exception type
exceptions
along with some error code and a meaningful error message and
avoid XWiki
specific exceptions (i think it's obvious).
But sure, the primary reason for going
with standard Java exceptions in the XML-RPC implementation would be
interoperability. What do the others think? Are there good reasons for
using XWikiException here?
You said this is transparent for client code so yes I'd go with a
XWikiRemoteException or something. If it's not transparent then we
need to think more.
Anyway are exceptions serialized in XMLRPC?
[snip]
-Vincent