Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [XP] Pattern Encoded Suffix

Expand Messages
  • Nayan Hajratwala
    ... In all cases the two character suffix was cited as creating a lack of clarity. In some cases the pattern name itself was considered
    Message 1 of 191 , Aug 9, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On Aug 9, 2012, at 3:51 PM, "MarvinToll.com" <MarvinToll@...> wrote:

      > This is important... was it perceived that the lack of clarity came from the two-character suffix or the inclusion of pattern name in the class?

      In all cases the two character suffix was cited as creating a lack of clarity.

      In some cases the pattern name itself was considered redundant/obvious/unneeded.

      For example, in the case of Person vs PersonBO. It's pretty clear to anyone who knows english, that a Person represents ... well, a Person. PersonBO means that someone has to first figure out what BO means (and no one likes Person BO :-) )
    • MarvinToll.com
      Jeff, Thanks for your feedback. The notion that a a Java author precisely considers whether they are using one of the two exception mechanisms to indicate a
      Message 191 of 191 , Sep 23 11:25 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Jeff,

        Thanks for your feedback.

        The notion that a a Java author precisely considers whether they are using one of the two exception mechanisms to indicate a true unanticipated exceptional break-down, or as an indication of alternate path processing (e.g. instead of return codes), is the thought-path I'm suggesting for consideration.

        As you mentioned (twice), there are contexts where the author could be wrong... and the code catching can respond as required.

        Said another way, I'm suggesting that authors throwing exceptions clarify the intended usage... even though a client's corner-case might warrant a different course than the author anticipated.

        _Marvin
        PatternEnabled.com

        --- In extremeprogramming@yahoogroups.com, "JeffGrigg" <jeffreytoddgrigg@...> wrote:
        >
        > The code that throws an exception should not (and cannot reasonably) know how the code that catches it will handle it. It's the responsibility of the code that catches the exception to do the right thing.
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.