About the proposed hierarchy, the problem with having specific exceptions is that they are important for those who catch them, not for those who signal them. For example, besides the name, what is the difference between KeyNotFound or ValueNotFound? none. So, I think that the exception hierarchy should be grown from it uses, not created based on how or where they are signaled.

my 2 cents :-)

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Miguel Cob� <miguel.coba@gmail.com> wrote:

El mi�, 13-04-2011 a las 14:52 +0200, Camillo Bruni escribi�:

> And as Mariano pointed out, there should be a convention on the
> naming: I am still not sure about suffixing the exception classes with
> "Exception", but I guess this is a good thing to do. Though I must say
> that I omitted it so far ;) and just put the verb there, but that can
> be easily changed.

I would say no to suffixes. Analogous to announcements, they shouldn't
have the suffix. The name should be descriptive enough and intention
revealing that the suffix isn't needed in most cases. For example, I
think that

DividedByZero

is better than

DividedByZeroException

and no information is lost with the sorter name. Instead, DivideByZero
isn't clear enough to indicate that is a event that happened.

What do you think?

--
Miguel Cob�
http://twitter.com/MiguelCobaMtz
http://miguel.leugim.com.mx

Hern�n Wilkinson
Agile Software Development, Teaching & Coaching
Mobile: +54 - 911 - 4470 - 7207
email: hernan.wilkinson@10Pines.com
site:�http://www.10Pines.com