Lance Andersen lance.andersen at
Mon Oct 9 11:26:28 UTC 2017

Thank you for the feedback….
> On Oct 9, 2017, at 3:36 AM, Lukas Eder <lukas.eder at> wrote:
> I'm not sure how I missed this when I reviewed the API, but I most
> certainly agree with Philippe's points 1) and 3)
> The dependency on java.sql was also discussed in the context of having an
> independent (or not) JdbcType class:
> 2017-October/000105.html
> As far as checked exceptions are concerned, they were indeed the wrong
> choice for all things related to system exceptions (which includes the old
> SQLException and IOException).

Just like with JDBCType, this is somewhat of a placeholder so don’t read too much into it right now.  There is more discussion to be had around Exceptions.

> I don't have an opinion on 2) naming :)
> Thanks,
> Lukas
> 2017-10-09 9:18 GMT+02:00 Philippe Marschall <pm at>:
>> Hello
>> I think SqlException extending SQLException is not ideal for several
>> reasons
>> 1. It introduces a dependency on the java.sql module which in term brings
>> dependencies to the java.xml and java.logging modules. This sorta, kinda
>> defeats the idea behind building minimal runtime images.
>> 2. It is super confusing to have two different capitalisations (I realize
>> JDBC does not follow Java naming conventions).
>> 3. It is a checked exception. There is broad consensus that checked
>> exceptions in practice do not bring the benefits once envisioned plus bring
>> a lot of downsides. All the new APIs that I'm aware of use runtime /
>> unchecked exceptions instead of checked exceptions. This is especially true
>> for all the functional/stream interfaces in Java 8, hence things like
>> Cheers
>> Philippe

 <> <>
 <>Lance Andersen| Principal Member of Technical Staff | +1.781.442.2037
Oracle Java Engineering 
1 Network Drive 
Burlington, MA 01803
Lance.Andersen at <mailto:Lance.Andersen at>

More information about the jdbc-spec-discuss mailing list