first cut of hal service description file
hp at redhat.com
Thu Mar 31 14:08:09 PST 2005
On Thu, 2005-03-31 at 16:42 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> So, I think what I'm getting at, is that it's indeed useful to include
> what exceptions apart from DBusException a method may throw in the XML
> (whether it's hand-written or generated from introspection data). Does
> that make sense?
I think I agree it would be useful, _if_ it were reliably there. But I
- for generated-from-object-reflection introspection XML, which I
do think should be the normal case with good programming languages,
the info won't be there by default
- for hand-written XML, it doesn't seem to me that people will keep
it in sync with the reality of which errors are thrown (especially
when errors can be generated by the bus)
Having it as optional annotation is fine I guess, but I wouldn't want to
see it considered part of the ABI of the described interface. Which
would mean e.g. Java should generate "void foo() throws DBusException()"
not "void foo() throws Bar, Baz"
More information about the dbus