>>usage
>>The fundamental question is what is the correct thing to do? The CLR
>>answered this by saying that an unhandled exception on the main thread
>>terminates the app, otherwise it doesn't. IMO by default it should have
>>terminated it for all threads.
>
>Consider the scenario of a service al
At 01:52 AM 12/10/2003, Keith Hill wrote
>>From: Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:10 AM
>>Subject: Re: thread exceptions terminate entire app - forcing try-catch
>>usage
>>The fundamental question is what is the correct thing to do? The CLR
>>answered this by say
>From: Dave [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 10:10 AM
>Subject: Re: thread exceptions terminate entire app - forcing try-catch
>usage
>The fundamental question is what is the correct thing to do? The CLR
>answered this by saying that an unhandled exception on the main th
>No, I'm not proposing any "special exception handler". Where did you
>concoct that? I'm saying -- stick with the known, proven means of
>dealing with unhandled exceptions. AppDomain.UnhandledException does
>what you want. For that matter, so does
>System.Windows.Forms.Application.ThreadExcepti
: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 6:59 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] thread exceptions terminate entire app -
forcing try-catch usage
One could easily argue it is more beneficial to have an app that errors
out, than one that mis-handles the errors that happen. Both are going to be
Original Message-
From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jade Burton
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 7:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] thread exceptions terminate entire app -
forcing try-catch usage
> Ummm, n
At 07:56 AM 12/9/2003, Stephen Johnston wrote (in part)
>I would rather have an application error out and stop running than have the same
>programmer who can't use try..catches at key places write the error handling at the
>top of anything. With my luck they would just suppress the error out of l
D] On Behalf Of Stephen Johnston
Sent: Tuesday, December 09, 2003 2:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] thread exceptions terminate entire app -
forcing try-catch usage
One could easily argue it is more beneficial to have an app that errors out,
than one that mis-handles the e
you can handle exceptions when you have enough
context to make sense of them, and enough stack left that you can repair
data structures before popping.
-- arlie
-Original Message-
From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jade Burton
Sent: Monday, De
discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlie Davis
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] thread exceptions terminate entire app -
forcing try-catch usage
Ummm, no. Methods are things that can do things. Being th
ptions? THAT is far more
offensive than any new keyword! :p
-jade
-Original Message-
From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arlie Davis
Sent: Tuesday, 9 December 2003 10:03 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] thread excepti
re popping.
-- arlie
-Original Message-
From: Moderated discussion of advanced .NET topics.
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jade Burton
Sent: Monday, December 08, 2003 5:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ADVANCED-DOTNET] thread exceptions terminate entire app -
forcing try-c
> Yes, if I wrote a server and I had a bug in it that resulted in an
> unhandled exception, then the absolute last thing I want to do it keep
> running. There would be no means of determining what state the app was in,
> what resources were allocated and locked, what mutexes were abandoned,
> etc.
13 matches
Mail list logo
