Re: fhpd vs RuntimeExceptions

[Phil Muldoon <pmuldoon@redhat.com>]

Mark Wielaard wrote:
> Hi Phil,
>
> On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 17:01 +0000, Phil Muldoon wrote:
>   
>> As talked about on IRC over the corefile 
>> message design, exceptions can and are used to carry warnings, messages 
>> and so on. How do you differentiate between a warning and an error in 
>> this case?
>>     
>
> By using different exception types, so a higher level can distinquish
> between a "recoverable" warning and a "unrecoverable" error.
>   

Like I mentioned in reply to Sami's email yesterday, having a napi throw 
several different unchecked exception types places a huge and unfair 
burden on the user to know the code beyond the api. The places "must be 
an expert on Frysk to call Frysk apis" charge at our feet.

> Yes, I think that is the way forward. Something terribly failed. And
> just passing the "address 6992f8 cannot be found in metadata table."
> message to the user is clearly not very helpful if the user just wanted
> to run a specific command. 

What would be helpful here? It's a message, not an error? Basically it 
just means cannot read the address here as we don't know how to read it. 
I can format the  message however I want, but it is still not an error 
message. However it sure looks like one now ;)

> Only the command knows if this is something
> fatal or not and should catch it at the appropriate level and report
> what the exact action was that was attempted and which structure
> couldn't be created because of the error.
>   

No in the my case. Corecommand is just there to bootstrap a corefile 
into fhpd and report back any messages and/or errors it receives.


Regards

Phil