Hi Joachim,
Joa...@tp... wrote:
> Hy,
>
> I once again stumbled over a case where the root exception is lost. This
> time it's in the ODMB-Implementation and throwing a ODMB-Exception which
> make the case a bit more complicated.
>
> My question is: Is it possible/legal to modify or subclass the
> ODMG-Exceptions while still beeing a compliant Implementation? (I don't
> have the ODMG-Standard (actually, I just found Version 1.2 of the Standard
> from 1993 some days ago for 2 Euro and bought it, but it doesn't have
> Java-Mappings in this Version ;-)).
I did not find any statement in the ODMG spec that disallows subclassing
for exceptions.
So IMO it will be pretty OK to provide our own exceptions.
>
> If this is not possible, we could introduce an Exception-Helper that let
> us set the cause for non-OJB-Exceptions without changeing their code. This
> class would do almost the exact same thing as what my Patch for
> PersistenceBrokerException does.
>
> I'd like to ask you what you think of such a class. Additionally I'd like
> to ask if this counts as a new "Feature" and therefore is forbidden, due
> to feature freeze.
>
Mor me this is clearly a bug fix and not a new feature.
Also, I don't think we have a real code freeze.
I just placed a remark in the release-notes requesting user not to urge
us to implement new features until 1.0.
This will reduce the pressure on the development team and allow us to
concentrate on fixing bugs, stabilizing the codebase, completing
documentation etc.
(If you have a cool new feature I don't see why it should not be added
before 1.0).
cheers,
Thomas
> regards
> Joachim Sauer
>
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> Don't miss the 2002 Sprint PCS Application Developer's Conference
> August 25-28 in Las Vegas -- http://devcon.sprintpcs.com/adp/index.cfm
>
> _______________________________________________
> Objectbridge-developers mailing list
> Obj...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/objectbridge-developers
>
>
>
>
|
