Re: About java program.

From:

Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com>

Newsgroups:

comp.lang.java.programmer

Date:

Mon, 08 Jul 2013 23:29:36 +0200

Message-ID:

<b40pa7FpfgaU1@mid.individual.net>

On 08.07.2013 21:01, Eric Sosman wrote:

On 7/8/2013 2:50 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

On 08.07.2013 00:07, Eric Sosman wrote:

On 7/7/2013 2:43 PM, Robert Klemme wrote:

On 06.07.2013 14:22, Eric Sosman wrote:

On 7/6/2013 7:14 AM, Robert Klemme wrote:

[...]
Well, you can forget the logging on *any* level of the application.
There is no really a difference between asking the author of this
method
to do proper error handling or asking the author of some other
code to
do it.

The caller has more context. When Integer.parseInt() is
unable to make sense of the input string, it has no way of knowing
whether the failure is fatal, unusual, or expected. Do you think
it should log all such failures in addition to throwing up?

No. That is exactly my point.

Okay, you've confused me. I maintain that the caller has more
context than the callee, and is therefore (often) in a better position
to make wider-scope decisions in handling errors. That, it seems to
me, is a distinct and notable difference in how the errors are handled.

Absolutely.

Yet you say "there is really no difference" in handling an error Here
or There (or maybe even Elsewhere). I don't get it.

I just said above that errors by developers happen on every level of an
application. If you ask that (error) conditions should be logged on a
low level (callee) you can as well ask that errors are handled / logged
at the upper level (caller). In light of human beings writing the code
they can forget here or there. I said that because the argument was
that the logging should be done in the low level method because the
caller author may forget it. Does that help to get rid of the confusion?

Thanks for the clarification. I misunderstood "you can forget"
as a dismissive idiom, as in "forget about it" (or "fuhgeddaboudit")
instead of as "one might forget" or "forgetfulness happens."

Duh! Thank you for bringing that up. On rereading my wording was
indeed quite ambiguous. Amazing how one does not notice - the meaning
is of course obvious to the author. :-)

I think we agree vehemently.

Yes.

Cheers

robert

--
remember.guy do |as, often| as.you_can - without end
http://blog.rubybestpractices.com/