[Pharo-project] Improving Pharo's Exception Hierarchy

Alexandre Bergel alexandre.bergel at me.com
Thu Apr 14 18:38:50 CEST 2011


> I think you said it right here: "having classes for all _relevant_ concepts actually pays off"... 

I do not quite agree on this. Responsibility should be the driver, not the concepts.

Alexandre


> Related to exceptions, my question is:  what are all the different concepts you have? for example, not finding a Key or not finding a Value are really different concepts? or is it the same (not finding something) that depending on the context (finding a value or a key) is what looks like they are different? if so, then there is only one concept (i.e. not finding an object), if it is a key or a value is accidental, contextual to what you are looking for.
> So, I completely agree when you say "having classes for all relevant concepts"... I think we do not agree on what are the relevant concepts when we talk about exceptions...
>  
> 
> Toon
> 
> 
> On 04/14/2011 01:00 AM, Dale Henrichs wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 02:58 PM, Toon Verwaest wrote:
> Is it such a problem if you duplicate a certain exception class? At the
> moment you'll do the same anyway by not completely writing the exact
> same symbol.
> 
> It's a simple matter of namespaces and volume of names ... with a large open ended namespace you are more likely to have a number of redundant names with slight differences in spelling showing up in different spots in the hierarchy...with a logically segmented namespace each segment will have a manageable number of names and the risk of duplication is reduced ... end of discussion ...
> 
> 10,000 names vs 30 names ... I can easily recognize duplicates in a list of 30 names ... not so easy in 10,000 ... that is all ...
> 
> to attempt to map every possible error condition onto a class will lead you to 10,000 much quicker than using reasonCodes ... that is all ...
> 
> I don't hate classes, it is a _practical_ matter ... if _you_ would rather manage 10,000 names then I will say that it isn't practical ... I'm _not_ saying it is _wrong_, just not _practical_.
> 
> 
> And if the problem is not finding classes anymore, maybe we need a
> better way of organizing the exception classes away from the standard
> classes so that they are as non-intrusive as symbols, but convey more
> information?
> 
> And now you've hit the nail on the head ... in order to handle the extra complexity you need additional tools ... before creating more tools, ask your self the simple question: "Do I _need_ the additional complexity?" ... if the answer is yes, then create the tool, if the answer is no, then you don't need to create a new tool ..
> 
> Again, this is a _practical_ matter...
> 
> 
> self error: #keyNotFound
> does not really give much information; and isn't much more difficult to
> write than:
> KeyNotFoundException new in: self; key: key; signal
> 
> From a practical perspective how many exception handlers will be written to handle KeyNotFoundException ... I use at:ifAbsent: when I'm doing a look up that I think might fail ... better than writing an exception handler ...
> 
> If there is a real need to write a handler for KeyNotFoundException, then by all means create the class, but until you actually NEED KeyNotFoundException, `self error: #keyNotFound` or `NotFoundException signal: #keyNotFound` will work just fine...
> 
> although the second one gives you all the contextual information that
> the first one misses.
> 
> _If_ you NEED the additional contextual information. It's just like writing a framework that no uses ... there's nothing wrong with the idea or the implementation, it's just that the framework didn't solve a problem that anyone had...
> 
> If you are going to create a class, I think the least it should do is address an real problem, not an imaginary one.
> 
> To say that "if one were to handle the KeyNotFoundException, they will need the complete context", I prefer to say "Until one needs the complete context of the KeyNotFoundException, don't bother creating class"
> 
> 
> What I mean mostly: what about trying to figure out why you want to
> avoid decent exception classes and tackling that problem?
> 
> Depends upon what your definition of a decent exception classes is? My argument is simply that it is not _necessary_ to create a unique class for every unique error condition ... I think that folks should answer the question: "Will anyone every write an exception handler for this exception" before creating the class ... if the answer is yes (or better yet, I am writing code right now and need that exception) then by all means create the class.
> 
> Maybe we don't want classes but exception objects that can pool data
> together? Maybe a very silly idea: what about just exception "classes"
> that have dictionaries to store enough information?
> 
> That would be another way of doing things ... although using exception classes and reasonCodes is pretty close to all that is needed...
> 
> I agree with the notion that it isn't that useful to have a single Error class and have all errors mapped to it ... on the other hand I don't think it is particularly useful to have an exception class for every possible error condition ... the compromise is to provide a smallish hierarchy of excpetion classes with fairly general structure, provide a means for uniquely identifying every possible error condition (I think that is important) and then add new classes to the hierarchy when a demand for the class is found ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Hernán Wilkinson
> Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching
> Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207
> email: hernan.wilkinson at 10Pines.com
> site: http://www.10Pines.com
> 

-- 
_,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:
Alexandre Bergel  http://www.bergel.eu
^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;._,.;:~^~:;.








More information about the Pharo-project mailing list