Hi, > when the function > provided via onComplete is executed there will be no sub routines in > the call stack
Right (well, not very many). But if you look again a Glenn's suggestion, he's saying that not having an onException handler in your Ajax options is analogous to not having a try..catch block around you code, so the exception would be raised to the browser. He demonstrated that much the same could be achieved by raising the exceptions via a defer (setTimeout). It doesn't provide nesting, which I think is important, but it would make the exceptions not silent in the absense of a handler, which was his goal. I don't speak for the Core team, but I don't see it happening if none of them have jumped into this thread so far. FWIW, -- T.J. Crowder tj / crowder software / com Independent Software Engineer, consulting services available On Jun 14, 12:41 am, rasmus <[email protected]> wrote: > Any news on this? I myself was confused with the way Prototype seems > to be swallowing exceptions without giving the developer a clue about > it. > > As Glenn, I really feel that exceptions thrown from an ajax request > should somehow be propagated upwards if no explicit onException > (analogous to a catch in my mind) is provided. > > However, something tells me that the reason this is not done is due to > the way ajax requests work. After an ajax request is sent, the js > interpreter will reach the end of any global try block long before the > ajax response returns. Hence, it does not make sense to propagate any > exceptions upwards in the call stack as suggested; when the function > provided via onComplete is executed there will be no sub routines in > the call stack. > > Maybe this is the reason why no exceptions are thrown: you cannot > possible wrap the onComplete function with a global try/catch block as > it is called out of "normal" context. > > No matter what, I'd like to hear a clarification from someone who > understands this better than I do :) > > On May 15, 10:06 pm, Glenn Maynard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Fri, May 15, 2009 at 4:47 AM, T.J. Crowder <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > I don't see any point in continuing this. You feel quite strongly > > > about this and I'm unlikely to change your mind. I feel less strongly > > > about it, but you're not likely to change my mind either -- not that > > > it matters either way, as neither of us is a Core developer. :-) I > > > _do_ see your point about the absense of an onException handler being > > > somewhat analagous to the absense of a catch block. > > > If you're not going to explain your opinion at all, then no, there's > > no point in continuing this with you. You havn't offered a single > > reason for why the errors should not be raised if no exception > > handlers are set. Don't just assert your disagreement and then refuse > > to explain it. > > > -- > > Glenn Maynard > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Prototype & script.aculo.us" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/prototype-scriptaculous?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
