Menu
▾
▴
springframework-developer
|
From: Keith D. <ke...@in...> - 2005-04-04 16:49:26
|
Hey guys, Juergen and discussed this: a dependency on util -> core is NOT acceptable. "core" is intended for higher-level utilities used throughout Spring, for generic, more complete abstractions like the Resource API. It may depend on util, but not the other way around. Util is intended for low-level helpers, and should not depend on any other package but stuff in JDK 1.3. Both go in spring-core.jar. So in light of this, I'm relocating a good deal of packages from util to core, the closure, enums, comparator, and string styler support, respectively. This seems much better and solves the problem I was facing: that is, a class needing NestedRuntimeException, which is in the core. Keith _____ From: Keith Donald [mailto:ke...@in...] Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:30 PM To: 'spr...@li...' Subject: package dependency Is a package dependency from "util" to "core" acceptable? I could really use NestedRuntimeException there... Keith Keith Donald http://www.springframework.com <http://www.springframework.com/> - Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" |
|
From: Erwin V. <erw...@er...> - 2005-04-04 17:39:14
|
NestedRuntimeException should really have been in util I guess, but it's = to late to change that... Erwin Vervaet erw...@er... ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Keith Donald=20 To: spr...@li...=20 Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 6:48 PM Subject: [Springframework-developer] FW: package dependency Hey guys, =20 Juergen and discussed this: a dependency on util -> core is NOT = acceptable. "core" is intended for higher-level utilities used = throughout Spring, for generic, more complete abstractions like the = Resource API. It may depend on util, but not the other way around. = Util is intended for low-level helpers, and should not depend on any = other package but stuff in JDK 1.3. Both go in spring-core.jar. =20 So in light of this, I'm relocating a good deal of packages from util = to core, the closure, enums, comparator, and string styler support, = respectively. This seems much better and solves the problem I was = facing: that is, a class needing NestedRuntimeException, which is in the = core. =20 Keith =20 -------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- From: Keith Donald [mailto:ke...@in...]=20 Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:30 PM To: 'spr...@li...' Subject: package dependency =20 Is a package dependency from "util" to "core" acceptable? I could = really use NestedRuntimeException there... =20 Keith =20 Keith Donald http://www.springframework.com - Spring Training, Consulting and = Support - "From the Source" =20 |
|
From: Colin S. <col...@ex...> - 2005-04-04 18:23:29
|
We _could_ duplicate the class in util, and make the class in core a subclass. I don't know of how much value that would be at this point though, since all the code in Spring that throws it would still have to throw the old version, so APIs would not break. It would probably confuse things like crazy. Colin Erwin Vervaet wrote: > NestedRuntimeException should really have been in util I guess, but > it's to late to change that... > Erwin Vervaet > erw...@er... <mailto:erw...@er...> > > ----- Original Message ----- > *From:* Keith Donald <mailto:ke...@in...> > *To:* spr...@li... > <mailto:spr...@li...> > *Sent:* Monday, April 04, 2005 6:48 PM > *Subject:* [Springframework-developer] FW: package dependency > > Hey guys, > > Juergen and discussed this: a dependency on util -> core is NOT > acceptable. “core” is intended for higher-level utilities used > throughout Spring, for generic, more complete abstractions like > the Resource API. It may depend on util, but not the other way > around. Util is intended for low-level helpers, and should not > depend on any other package but stuff in JDK 1.3. Both go in > spring-core.jar. > > So in light of this, I’m relocating a good deal of packages from > util to core, the closure, enums, comparator, and string styler > support, respectively. This seems much better and solves the > problem I was facing: that is, a class needing > NestedRuntimeException, which is in the core. > > Keith > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Keith Donald [mailto:ke...@in...] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:30 PM > *To:* 'spr...@li...' > *Subject:* package dependency > > Is a package dependency from “util” to “core” acceptable? I could > really use NestedRuntimeException there... > > Keith > > Keith Donald > > http://www.springframework.com <http://www.springframework.com/> - > Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" > -- Colin Sampaleanu Interface21 Principal Consultant Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" http://www.springframework.com |
|
From: Colin S. <col...@ex...> - 2005-04-04 17:42:39
|
Agreed, although frankly in retrospect NestRuntimeException probably belonged itself in util; it's incredibly useful for any environment which doesn't want to force JDK 1.4+ requirements (since all Exceptions can nest as of JDK 1.4, making the class superfluous). Keith Donald wrote: > Hey guys, > > Juergen and discussed this: a dependency on util -> core is NOT > acceptable. “core” is intended for higher-level utilities used > throughout Spring, for generic, more complete abstractions like the > Resource API. It may depend on util, but not the other way around. > Util is intended for low-level helpers, and should not depend on any > other package but stuff in JDK 1.3. Both go in spring-core.jar. > > So in light of this, I’m relocating a good deal of packages from util > to core, the closure, enums, comparator, and string styler support, > respectively. This seems much better and solves the problem I was > facing: that is, a class needing NestedRuntimeException, which is in > the core. > > Keith > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Keith Donald [mailto:ke...@in...] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:30 PM > *To:* 'spr...@li...' > *Subject:* package dependency > > Is a package dependency from “util” to “core” acceptable? I could > really use NestedRuntimeException there... > > Keith > > Keith Donald > > http://www.springframework.com <http://www.springframework.com/> - > Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" > -- Colin Sampaleanu Interface21 Principal Consultant Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" http://www.springframework.com |
|
From: Juergen H. <ju...@in...> - 2005-04-04 18:58:55
|
I don't remember exactly why we put it in core... I think we didn't want to encourage users to actually extend that class directly, but rather just let it serve as base class for Spring's own exception classes - without application code usually being aware of the base class. Furthermore, NestedRuntimeException is designed to seamlessly appear like a JDK 1.4 nested RuntimeException, mirroring the "getCause()" method etc. Once we switch to JDK 1.4 being required, we should be able to simply drop our NestedRuntimeException class and derive all of Spring's own exception classes directly from RuntimeException. I would argue that application code should - in general - either use concrete Spring exceptions, JDK 1.4 exceptions or Commons Lang exceptions, but not rely on Spring's own core NestedRuntimeException directly. For that reason and for the sake of backwards compatibility, I'm not keen on moving it to the util package. Keith's closure, visitor and styler abstraction fit into the "core" package anyway. Those are rather full-blown abstractions that exceed the scope of the "util" package, which is just supposed to hold simple helper classes (mainly static). Nevertheless, Keith's stuff is still below "beans" and co, so "core" seems to be appropriate. Juergen -----Original Message----- From: spr...@li... [mailto:spr...@li...]On Behalf Of Colin Sampaleanu Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 7:42 PM To: spr...@li... Subject: Re: [Springframework-developer] FW: package dependency Agreed, although frankly in retrospect NestRuntimeException probably belonged itself in util; it's incredibly useful for any environment which doesn't want to force JDK 1.4+ requirements (since all Exceptions can nest as of JDK 1.4, making the class superfluous). Keith Donald wrote: > Hey guys, > > Juergen and discussed this: a dependency on util -> core is NOT > acceptable. “core” is intended for higher-level utilities used > throughout Spring, for generic, more complete abstractions like the > Resource API. It may depend on util, but not the other way around. > Util is intended for low-level helpers, and should not depend on any > other package but stuff in JDK 1.3. Both go in spring-core.jar. > > So in light of this, I’m relocating a good deal of packages from util > to core, the closure, enums, comparator, and string styler support, > respectively. This seems much better and solves the problem I was > facing: that is, a class needing NestedRuntimeException, which is in > the core. > > Keith > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* Keith Donald [mailto:ke...@in...] > *Sent:* Sunday, April 03, 2005 8:30 PM > *To:* 'spr...@li...' > *Subject:* package dependency > > Is a package dependency from “util” to “core” acceptable? I could > really use NestedRuntimeException there... > > Keith > > Keith Donald > > http://www.springframework.com <http://www.springframework.com/> - > Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" > -- Colin Sampaleanu Interface21 Principal Consultant Spring Training, Consulting and Support - "From the Source" http://www.springframework.com ------------------------------------------------------- SF email is sponsored by - The IT Product Guide Read honest & candid reviews on hundreds of IT Products from real users. Discover which products truly live up to the hype. Start reading now. http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=6595&alloc_id=14396&op=click _______________________________________________ Springframework-developer mailing list Spr...@li... https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/springframework-developer |
