7081804: Remove cause field from javax.xml.crypto.NoSuchMechnismException (original) (raw)

Sean Mullan sean.mullan at oracle.com
Tue Sep 27 15:38:14 UTC 2011

On 9/24/11 5:55 AM, Sebastian Sickelmann wrote:

Am 23.09.2011 20:54, schrieb Sean Mullan:

On 9/17/11 3:09 PM, Sebastian Sickelmann wrote:

i have updated the webrev [0]. But i think that L69 and L72 of the test should be changed to checkMutable and the implementation of the exceptions accordantly. That's an interesting question. The current implementation in your code is consistent with java.lang.ClassNotFoundException. I'm curious as to why they disallowed initCause to be called even if they were created using the constructors without Throwables. Any idea? Was this discussed in the other lists? I don't know. I can't find anything in the archives (don't know in which time i must search; The commit in ClassNotFoundException is prior rev 0) @core-libs-dev: Does someone remember why this solution was preferred for ClassNotFound?

See: http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4385429

I think I know the reason. If you allow initCause to be called when a cause is not initially provided, then getCause will still return null, which seems wrong.

For javax/xml/crypto i would change it to my suggestion (to L69 and L72) above to not break behavior for JSR105. On the other side it would be nice to have a common behavoir on this for all Exceptions in JDK.

There are 2 solutions that sound reasonable for me: 1. Preventing initCause when cause is given. And allowing initCause once (if created with an ctor without cause). 2. Preventing initCause in every exception class that has the 4 standard ctors. Only for those Exceptions without the "ctors with cause" the initCause can be called. I like both. No.1 is nearer to the behavoir we actually have and is more flexible than No.2. No.2 is more "secure". You cannot "inject" an cause in ex. after you catches the exception. But you must have the cause to initialize it before you create the exception, this is slightly more inflexible, even if i think this flexibility is not needed anywhere.

[0] http://oss-patches.24.eu/openjdk8/NoSuchMechanismException/70118043

-- Sebastian Any comments / progress on this? Just a couple of minor comments on the test: - the copyright date should only include 2011 - some minor typos (line number in []): [26] s/in/is [43] s/validating/validate [98] s/checkImutable/checkImmutable Updated webrev: http://oss-patches.24.eu/openjdk8/NoSuchMechanismException/70118044

BTW, the popup ads on this site are very annoying. Can you move your webrev to a different site?

--Sean

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list