On Thursday, January 23, 2003, at 09:56 pm, Rodney Waldhoff wrote:
While there may be cases in which "catch(Exception e)" could be construed
as reasonable thing to do, I think we'd be hard pressed to ever justify
"catch(Throwable t)".
+1
There are very, very few cases where you want to catch an error, and
then only in something like an appserver where choices remain.
(I'm also in favor of weeding out "catch(Exception e)" and for that matter
"throws Exception" wherever possible, but Throwable should absolutely go
IMO.)
"throws Exception" is very evil.
However,
catch(SpecificExceptionA a)
{
}
catch(SpecificException b)
{
}
catch(Exception e)
{
}
is quite justifiable. Often, the last case is involved in translating the
exception into something suitable for the error above; ideally nesting
the original. In particular, I very much dislike somelike Ant or Jelly
dying with the old "NullPointerException". I'd prefer at least to
get a specific error telling where to report it to, and apologising...
--
David Kennedy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To unsubscribe, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
For additional commands, e-mail: <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
