004 4:26 AM
To: Jakarta General List
Subject: Re: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items
I'm in favour of the multiple exception catch. I think the common use
for this is to catch a series of checked exceptions in a certain way,
while avoiding catching unchecked exceptions which y
I'm in favour of the multiple exception catch. I think the common use
for this is to catch a series of checked exceptions in a certain way,
while avoiding catching unchecked exceptions which you want to
propogate.
This is a good thing, because often I've seen code that catches
Exception for brevit
> > > try {
> > >
> > > } catch( (JMSException | RemoteException | SQLException) e) {
> > > }
> > try {
> > ...
> > } catch (Exception e) {
> > ...
> > }
> Usually you don't want to just catch all exceptions in a single block.
> Instead you want to have clusters of exceptions
And w
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:31:11 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > ...
> > > How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one blo
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 05:31, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> How about two lines, which you can already do today?
>
> try {
> ...
> } catch (Exception e) {
> ...
> }
The problem with such approach is that it catches all exception, checked
or not (see below)
> seems to be a standarized "log it and
Am Sa, 2004-11-20 um 08.31 schrieb Craig McClanahan:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > ...
> > > How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
> > >
> > > try {
> > >
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
> ...
> > How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
> >
> > try {
> >
> > } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
>
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
...
> How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
>
> try {
>
> } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
> }
>
> or possibly even:
>
> try {
>
> } catch( (JMSException | RemoteExcept
On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 19:35, Henri Yandell wrote:
> 2/
> How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
>
> try {
>
> } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
> }
>
> or possibly even:
>
> try {
>
> } catch( (JMSException | RemoteException
> try {
>
> } catch(JMSException, RemoteException, SQLException e) {
> }
+1
(We used to have something like that in Smalltalk)
Gary
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL P
gt; To: Jakarta General List <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 10/29/04 12:38:48 PM
> Subject: Exception handling Was: Future JDK features 2 items
>
>
>
>
> 2/
> How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
>
> try {
>
&
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 13:35:04 -0400 (EDT), Henri Yandell
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
>
> > I actually love closures, and think it would be a great addition to Java. I
> > spend a lot of time tracking down poorly written try/finally blocks in
> > pe
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004, Dain Sundstrom wrote:
I actually love closures, and think it would be a great addition to Java. I
spend a lot of time tracking down poorly written try/finally blocks in
people's code where they don't properly close DB connections, IO streams, Jar
files, and even delete the
13 matches
Mail list logo
