Well, I agree it would be the right approach in any other context.
Unfortunately the compiler does not approve it in a static initializer and
complains on unhandled exception. It has no objections against a
RuntimeException (the one that is not expected to be caught) though.
Will JAMES treat a RuntimeException in the right way?
Regards,
Sergey
----- Original Message -----
From: "Norman Maurer" <[email protected]>
To: "James Users List" <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2011 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: Exception handling in a matcher static initializer block
You should just throw a MessagingException in this case. This will
make sure JAMES will not start at all.
Bye,
Norman
2011/4/23 USHAKOV, Sergey <[email protected]>:
Hi all,
what would be the right behavior for a matcher when an exception happens
in
its static initializer block?
Wrap the exception into a RuntimeException and re-throw? Do a
'e.printStackTrace()'? Something else?
Thanks and best regards,
Sergey
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
