Re: [Junitdoclet-users] exception handling patch (bugfix)

[Nicola F. <nic...@va...>]

hi steffen

On Sun, 2003-04-06 at 22:10, ste...@ob... wrote:
> The tests passed when we released. And they passed a minute 
> ago. Maybe you've changed something else?

Hm, gotta fix that the next time I play around with it.

> Ever thought about encapsulation? What do you think 
> of a program spreading IllegalPriceExceptions and the 
> knowledge to handle them all over the application? 
> (I'd like to suggest a book: "The Pragmatic Programmer" 
> or "Der Pragmatische Programmierer" if you prefer a 
> german translation.)

I fully agree that such an IllegalPriceException should only be thrown
to an object directly accessing the setPrice() method and be caught at
the caller (the caller might decide to throw another, more general
exception [generally] then to _his_ caller if it was his caller's
fault).

And yes, I am fully capable of reading English books. thank you. :) And
besides, I also fully agree that wizards are evil (at least most of
them). Isn't JUnitDoclet a wizard? Hm.

> > That maybe have been the way it worked until now. 
> 
> Your statement does not sound like freedom to me.

Might be new for you: Freedom != Holidays

> Begging? Ever heard of feature requests?

Surely, but I have the feeling that even tough you honor a request, it's
still the team leader that decides which suggestions are finally
implemented (which is ok, besides). 

But for me writing what I need _is_ an option, so I use it when I have
the freedom (and time :). Otherwise, I gladfully write some feature
requests... :)

> Releasing buggy "patches" may be freedom to you, but is
> irritating to other users of JUnitDoclet (since they meight
> have difficulties to differenciate between the source of a 
> patch. I wouldn't even bothered, if your first patch would 
> have been working.

Sorry for that. To err is human.

> It's not my ego, that was hurt. If only one other user applied 
> your patch, he/she meight think different about our tool now. 
> That is, what I don't like.

Do you know the Compaq FAQ entry explaining "where the Any-key" is? Some
people never get it. Some people just shouldn't program (maybe me
included - but who else would then get the work done? :).

> Well, you meight try to communicate before you release 
> a patch. At least try. That does not limit your freedom, right? 

I will send my (stable) patches meant as a suggestion for a next release
first to you, promised. :)

> <quote source="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-not-lgpl.html">
> The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One
> is the GNU Library GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The 
> choice of license makes a big difference: using the Library GPL
> permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the
> ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs. </quote>

Thank you for this hard-to-find link! Was the reason to stick to this
license driven by the thought that someone would want to _include_
JUnitDoclet into some proprietary products? Or was it merely to allow
people to use (the free) JUnitDoclet to generate tests for their
(unfree) proprietary program?

btw, you're welcome for the hint with the sf.net patches. I only find it
sad that the whole menu entry has disappeared since you removed my patch
from public! :) 

regards
nicola

ps: your nice xml style for the quote brings my to another suggestion:
why not use XML as configuration format for JUnitDoclet? Fact is,
properties-files are ugly and some buzzwords like XML and maybe XPath
(or what is it called today) would surely frehen intereset in
JUnitDoclet, don't you think?