Talk:APIDesignPatterns:Exceptions
From APIDesign
(Difference between revisions)
(Comment provided by Aljoscha Rittner - via ArticleComments extension) |
|||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
best regards, | best regards, | ||
| - | + | josh. | |
--[http://www.sepix.de/blogs/blogrittner/index.html Aljoscha Rittner] 08:35, 15 September 2008 (CEST) | --[http://www.sepix.de/blogs/blogrittner/index.html Aljoscha Rittner] 08:35, 15 September 2008 (CEST) | ||
</div> | </div> | ||
| + | |||
| + | One can always use getStackTrace/setStackTrace methods on an exception to adjust the stacktrace, but indeed, that means everything is getting more complicated. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:JaroslavTulach|JaroslavTulach]] 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC) | ||
Current revision
Comments on APIDesignPatterns:Exceptions <comments />
Aljoscha Rittner said ...
One can always use getStackTrace/setStackTrace methods on an exception to adjust the stacktrace, but indeed, that means everything is getting more complicated.
--JaroslavTulach 09:41, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Follow
"On the other hand, Chapter 5 also advices to prefer factory methods over exposing constructors. I tried that few times, but I have a feeling that this feels a bit unnatural and as such I cannot recommend code like: " [...factory sample...]
It's not only unnatural, a static factory hides the real exception point into the stacktrace.
best regards, josh.
--Aljoscha Rittner 08:35, 15 September 2008 (CEST)