Re: [cinjug-users] Brandan Jones Presentation

[Scott Balmos <sbalmos@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jim Weirich wrote:
> On 10/31/06, *Edward Sumerfield* <esumerfd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> <mailto:esumerfd@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
>
>
>     I agree with your disagreement, I wonder if my perception more tightly
>     correlates in the Java community and is less relevant elsewhere.
>     Perhaps we could increased the correlation by limiting our set to
>     those Java programmers that have not experienced other languages. 
>
>
> If we limit our sample to Java programmers, I would not be surprised 
> by the correlation.  But we haven't actually established the 
> correlation yet.
>
> I too am surprised that we have seen any strong support for checked 
> exceptions in this group.

This really is more of a technicality, since it still boils down to the 
implementing language, but I would technically say that SOAP supports 
checked exceptions, since you can define each operation's SOAP fault 
types explicitly in the WSDL file.

Personally, I have not yet done enough different projects to really make 
this authoritative... But the pattern I use in the big multi-module JEE 
/ SOAP app that I'm writing in my free time is to make exceptions that 
require large interruption of the client's / user's workflow checked, 
while everything else unchecked.

For example, I have checked UnauthorizedException, 
UserAlreadyExistsException, etc since these would require logging in as 
a different user, asking for another username to create, etc. Invalid 
object IDs and generally bad data for a single method call are 
unchecked, since the current form action can be redisplayed with an 
appropriate error scream at the user, and the user's train of thought 
and workflow (hopefully) won't be completely derailed.

Hope that explanation made sense... If not, charge the wasted time to my 
expense account. I'll reimburse you in the future when I actually have 
an expense account. :)

--Scott