Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.java.programmer > #24785

Re: Interface with implied Constructor

Show key headers only | View raw

On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 17:12:47 -0400, Eric Sosman wrote:

> On 7/20/2013 3:12 PM, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>> On Sat, 20 Jul 2013 19:46:16 +0200, Robert Klemme wrote:
>>
>>> On 19.07.2013 23:21, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> I take the opposite approach to Robert over that for one reason: that
>>>> the only way to report init errors in a constructor is to throw an
>>>> Exception,
>>>> which means the instance declaration often needs to go inside a
>>>> try/catch block which can screw up scoping.
>>>
>>> In what ways does this screw up scoping?
>>>
>> Just that I often find that I need access to the instance outside the
>> try/
>> catch block containing the constructor call and I don't much like
>> initialising the pointer as null.
> 
>      Then ... don't initialize it.
> 
> 	Thing thing;
> 	try {
> 	    thing = new Thing();
> 	} catch (DooWopDooWopDooWopException ex) {
> 	    logger.log(Level.SEVERE, "Eek!", ex);
> 	    throw ex;
> 	}
> 	System.out.println(thing.getSwing());
> 	...
> 
> This form has the advantage that the compiler will complain if the
> all-important `throw ex;' is forgotten, whereas initializing to null
> would just get you an NPE.
> 
>      Very occasionally there's a situation where you really do need
> to use the null-ness of `thing' as an indication that construction
> failed.  In that case, I'd still suggest not initializing:
> 
> 	Thing thing;
> 	try {
> 	    thing = new Thing();
> 	} catch (DooWopDooWopDooWopException ex) {
> 	    logger.log(Level.SEVERE, "Eek!", ex);
> 	    thing = null;
> 	}
> 	if (thing != null) {
> 	    System.out.println(thing.getSwing());
> 	else {
> 	    System.out.println("It don't mean a thing");
> 	}
> 
> IMHO, situations like this are suggestive of a poorly-designed Thing
> class (which you may be forced to endure), or of a method that's trying
> to do too many things and might better be split up.
> 
>> This is a result of my dislike of using Exceptions to signal anything
>> except a fatal error and may well be a hangover from writing a lot of C
>> in the past. A method that returns reference to a library class whose
>> constructor can throw an exception, e.g. Integer, but does not itself
>> return an exception requires this sort of structure:
>>
>> public class Altitude {
>>    int    alt   = 0;
>>    String error = null;
>>
>>    /**
>>     * Returning a negative number indicates an invalid height.
>>     */
>>    public int getHeight(String height)
>>    {
>>      Integer h = null;
> 
>      Since this initialization is useless (the variable will
> always be overwritten, exception or no), why even have it?
> 
>>      try {
>>        h = new Integer(height);
>>        if (h < 0)
>>          error = "Below MSL";
>>      }
>>      catch (NumberFormatException e)
>>      {
>>        error = e.getMessage(); h = new Integer(-1);
>>      }
>>
>>      return alt = h.intValue();
>>    }
>>
>>    public boolean isValid()
>>    { return error === null; }
>>
>>    public String getError()
>>    { return error; }
>> }
>>
>> This isn't a really good example because Integer provides other ways of
>> doing the job, but it does illustrate the sort of scoping problem I'm
>> talking about: that of allowing access to the Integer instance in both
>> parts of the try/catch block as well as from surrounding parts of the
>> method body.
> 
>      I don't see how the NumberFormatException has much to do
> with it: Your getHeight() method needs the `h' at the point of its
> return, so its scope must include the return statement. The only
> "scoping issue" I can see is that the try block and the catch block have
> their own subsidiary scopes in which `h' also needs to be (and is)
> visible -- but then, why aren't you worried about the scope of `height'?
>  (Or even of `error' and `alt'?)
>
You're right, of course. But, please bear in mind that I concocted this 
example at Robert's request to illustrate the sort of scoping situation 
where I prefer to use a constructor that never throws an Exception plus 
an init() method that can throw one rather than a constructor that does 
it all but needs to throw an Exception if a recoverable error occurs in 
the constructor.


-- 
martin@   | Martin Gregorie
gregorie. | Essex, UK
org       |

Back to comp.lang.java.programmer | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-09 18:41 +0800
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-09 04:08 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 06:46 +0800
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-09 21:08 -0400
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-11 19:11 -0700
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-14 17:53 +0200
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-15 08:58 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-15 10:57 -0700
              [OT] Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-15 14:13 -0400
                Re: [OT] Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-15 12:58 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-15 20:45 +0200
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-14 18:03 +0200
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-18 23:21 -0300
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-19 12:38 -0700
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 17:56 -0300
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-22 12:39 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-22 16:02 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-22 18:08 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-23 14:32 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Jim Gibson <jimsgibson@gmail.com> - 2013-07-23 14:43 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-24 13:27 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-24 18:20 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-26 00:03 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-24 21:18 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-24 17:42 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-23 18:19 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Gene Wirchenko <genew@telus.net> - 2013-07-24 13:31 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Steven Simpson <ss@domain.invalid> - 2013-07-27 04:06 +0100
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-19 21:21 +0000
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 18:56 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-19 18:10 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-19 20:46 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-20 12:42 +0800
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-20 09:08 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 09:08 -0400
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtrie@pixelmemory.us> - 2013-07-19 19:20 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-19 20:11 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-20 12:26 +0800
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-20 09:38 -0300
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 19:46 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-20 19:12 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 17:12 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Martin Gregorie <martin@address-in-sig.invalid> - 2013-07-20 21:18 +0000
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-21 12:13 +0200
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 16:18 -0300
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-21 13:45 -0700
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-21 16:58 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 21:19 -0300
          Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 20:09 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Robert Klemme <shortcutter@googlemail.com> - 2013-07-20 20:21 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-07-20 23:17 +0200
              Re: Interface with implied Constructor Eric Sosman <esosman@comcast-dot-net.invalid> - 2013-07-20 17:32 -0400
                Re: Interface with implied Constructor Joerg Meier <joergmmeier@arcor.de> - 2013-07-21 00:10 +0200
            Re: Interface with implied Constructor Arved Sandstrom <asandstrom2@eastlink.ca> - 2013-07-21 17:53 -0300
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-09 18:13 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 18:03 +0800
      Re: Interface with implied Constructor markspace <markspace@nospam.nospam> - 2013-07-10 08:41 -0700
        Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-11 06:53 +0800
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-09 21:41 -0700
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Richard Maher <maher_rjSPAMLESS@hotmail.com> - 2013-07-10 17:55 +0800
    Re: Interface with implied Constructor Daniel Pitts <newsgroup.nospam@virtualinfinity.net> - 2013-07-10 14:52 -0700
  Re: Interface with implied Constructor Roedy Green <see_website@mindprod.com.invalid> - 2013-07-10 16:02 -0700

csiph-web