+0 I can`t help but feel we are stretching Velocity more than what it was built for and we might end up with a more verbose and spaghetti code than what we would have liked (and than we currently have). As long as we try not to abuse it, I guess we can see how it goes. Thanks, Eduard On Sat, Apr 2, 2016 at 11:59 AM, Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net> wrote:
On 01 Apr 2016, at 23:04, Sergiu Dumitriu <sergiu@xwiki.org> wrote:
I think that it's a good idea for script services to throw somewhat expected exceptions, signalling invalid usage attempts (user not authorized, wrong arguments...) that would then be caught in Velocity. But deeper platform issues (DB errors, unexpected NPE, OOM...) should be handled outside the user's code itself, at the skin level (view.vm).
Sure, that’s the point. The scripts can decide to catch or not (ie. to handle or not). If not then it’s caught anyway at the level of MacroTransformation (for macros) or at the level of contentview.vm. In the majority of cases there isn’t much that the script can do and it shouldn’t catch anything (it should catch only if it can handle it, i.e. do something with the exception).
Thanks -Vincent
On 04/01/2016 05:45 AM, Vincent Massol wrote:
So far we have the following devs who agree: - thomas - marius - vincent
What about Edy, Sergiu and the others?
Thanks -Vincent
On 31 Mar 2016, at 14:17, Vincent Massol <vincent@massol.net> wrote:
Guys, I’d like that we progress on this.
I didn’t get any agreement or disagreement to this proposal.
Any take?
Thanks -Vincent
On 18 Jan 2016, at 11:03, vincent@massol.net wrote:
Hi devs,
After a lot of thinking and experimentation (see the thread’s
details), I have found that this first proposal is not a good idea. I’m thus proposing to replace it with the following best practice:
* Let our script services generate exceptions * If the velocity scripts with to handle the exceptions, then they
should use the #try() directive. If they don’t want to, they don’t have to do anything since the MacroTransformation or the template (contentvars.vm for example) will catch it and display it to the user.
More precisely I’m proposing that:
* Existing Script APIs in Java should not be modified as that would
break backward compatibility. New signatures can be added and old one deprecated and moved to the legacy modules. After new signatures have been introduced, existing velocity scripts can be updated to use the new signatures and to use the #try directive if needed.
* New Script APIs must use the new best practices (if agreed :)), i.e. throw Exceptions, and new velocity scripts must use the #try() directive if they need to handle exceptions.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
On 14 Jan 2016 at 17:51:04, vincent@massol.net (vincent@massol.net (mailto:vincent@massol.net)) wrote:
Hi devs,
Right now our strategy is for script services and script APIs in general to catch exceptions, store them and offer a getLastError() method to get them (see http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Script+Module#HBestPrac... )
However it would be much nicer to: * Let our script services generate exceptions * Offer a velocity script service to get the last exception raised by a java call from velocity * Implement this uberspector to catch the exceptions and to set them in the execution context
That should be quite easy to implement IMO.
WDYT?
Thanks -Vincent
PS: This is http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-2374
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
-- Sergiu Dumitriu http://purl.org/net/sergiu _______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
_______________________________________________ devs mailing list devs@xwiki.org http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs