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

Sebastian Sickelmann sebastian.sickelmann at gmx.de
Fri Sep 30 18:15:25 UTC 2011

Am 28.09.2011 06:36, schrieb Sebastian Sickelmann:

Am 27.09.2011 17:38, schrieb Sean Mullan:

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/viewbug.do?bugid=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. getCause() of Throwable and all classes that doesn't had a chaining before Throwable introduces it, doing this excact this way. Whats wrong on this? return (cause==this ? null : cause); // Where the initial value(uninitialied) of cause is this. Does this make sense? I actually not sure i understand you right. 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 think all exceptions that had no chaining before Throwable introduces it actually follow solution 1, where some of the Exceptions don't have a ctor with a cause. All those who had chaining before (ex. ClassNotFoundException) actually follow solution 2. But whats the correct solution? 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. If i think longer about it, i like No.2 a bit more. It is nearer what i would expect how a exception should react on giving a cause. [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? Ok. Done this. Sorry for the annoying ads, again.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/43692695/oss-patches/openjdk8/NoSuchMechanismException/7011804_4/index.html

Working on that. Sorry for the annoying ads. --Sean -- Sebastian

More information about the core-libs-dev mailing list