- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2012 14:14:38 +0000
- To: public-webapps-bugzilla@w3.org
https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=16608
Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |w3c@marcosc.com
--- Comment #5 from Marcos Caceres <w3c@marcosc.com> 2012-04-03 14:14:37 UTC ---
FWIW, I strongly agree with Ms2ger. Exceptional behavior is usually defined
underneath the algorithm that is being invoked (except if for some reason it
needs to throw its own exception). So, apart from noting that it might happen
(as in "If this threw an exception"), there is no need to redefine it because
otherwise you might get conflicts in behavior (specially if the underlying spec
changes beneath you).
I'll note that this caused a lot of issues in, for illustrative/historical
purposes, WAC's Device API's error handling behavior: because it defined
throwing exceptions that were then contradicted by WebIDL's behavior... it
basically meant that you could not implement WebIDL underneath an API because
the API had defined it's own error handling that seemed to be overriding
WebIDL... and hence it all became a huge non-conforming redundant confusing
ugly ugly ugly untestable mess.
--
Configure bugmail: https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Tuesday, 3 April 2012 14:14:47 UTC