|
|
Kent Tong wrote:
matthew c. mead <m-apache <at> goof.com> writes:
The main issue I was wondering about was whether the approach had to be
"wrap the exception in a RuntimeException." It sounds like it is.
No, it isn't. A better way is to let your exception classes extend
RuntimeException.
Good point. Why is it better, though? Less object creation? The
problem I have with my framework exceptions extending RuntimeException
is that by doing so I can end up being sloppy about properly handling
errors. If I'm forced to declare them thrown and catch them I can
ensure consistency in error handling throughout the business layer of
the application.
-matt
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: tapestry-user-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: tapestry-user-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|