Re: Re: SQLExceptions in JDBCWorkflowStore

Yep, I imagined something very similar. Although I'd like to cut down 
the wrapping/unwrapping of exceptions.

On Thursday, May 1, 2003, at 10:43 AM, Bill Schneider wrote:

> Sounds like we're on the same page on exception handling.
>
> Is the plan to have most of the top-level Workflow methods throw
> "WorkflowException" (checked or unchecked?  my vote would be for 
> checked
> except for things that can be verified before the call like
> InvalidInputException) and have things like WorkflowStoreException,
> WorkflowFactoryException etc., "extend WorkflowException"?
>
> Then inside JDBCWorkflowStore you'd have
>
> catch (SQLException e) {
>   throw new WorkflowStoreException(e);
> }
>
> and in the AbstractWorkflow method that calls it you'd just have
>
> public void doSomething... throws WorkflowException {
>   // no need to wrap with try-catch, any thrown 
> WorkflowStoreExceptions will
> go straight
>   // to client
>   workflowStore.storeMethod();
>
> }
>
> Is that roughly in line with the OS team's thinking?
> -- Bill
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
> Welcome to geek heaven.
> http://thinkgeek.com/sf
> _______________________________________________
> Opensymphony-developers mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensymphony-developers
>



-------------------------------------------------------
This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek
Welcome to geek heaven.
http://thinkgeek.com/sf