Re: [Wpg-proxy-development] design details and impact on unittesting

[John S. <jo...@we...>]

I agree on all proposals, I am willing to sit back and take a look at =
what
Alan puts together.  I admittedly have not thought deeply about how
exceptions/errors should be handled.  I'm not quite sure which =
exceptions we
should pass back to the handlers.  This is one of those places where the
question, in my mind, is should we handle most errors and just send a =
simple
error message to the handler for "handling" or should we not only handle =
an
error condition but also allow a plugin to handle error messages?  Maybe
that is a design area I have not explored fully because of my focus on
functionality, perhaps when we start writing test cases we should make =
sure
to include negative tests and make sure to test the error handling
conditions.  Perhaps when our user community grows a bit and people =
start
producing bugs we can modify it a bit more then, but that just speaks
volumes about having a well defined error mechanism so old code will not
break from one revision to the next.
OK, I will wait and see, my mind is having problems thinking about this =
for
some reason.

________________________________________
From: wpg...@li...
[mailto:wpg...@li...] On Behalf =
Of
Juan Gonz=E1lez
Sent: Wednesday, January 31, 2007 10:03 AM
To: wpg...@li...
Subject: Re: [Wpg-proxy-development] design details and impact on
unittesting

Now that I see the enum written, and after mentioning the "Context" =
class,
I=A0 feel that the later is a better solution because the enum doesn't =
allow
to change the message for any given value when used (only from within =
the
enum declaration), and it doesn't include any really usefull info, so =
what
do you think about the "Context" class concept?=20