Search Results

Search found 14016 results on 561 pages for 'exception specification'.

Page 1/561 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

• European Interoperability Framework - a new beginning?

  - by trond-arne.undheim

  The most controversial document in the history of the European Commission's IT policy is out. EIF is here, wrapped in the Communication "Towards interoperability for European public services", and including the new feature European Interoperability Strategy (EIS), arguably a higher strategic take on the same topic. Leaving EIS aside for a moment, the EIF controversy has been around IPR, defining open standards and about the proper terminology around standardization deliverables. Today, as the document finally emerges, what is the verdict? First of all, to be fair to those among you who do not spend your lives in the intricate labyrinths of Commission IT policy documents on interoperability, let's define what we are talking about. According to the Communication: "An interoperability framework is an agreed approach to interoperability for organisations that want to collaborate to provide joint delivery of public services. Within its scope of applicability, it specifies common elements such as vocabulary, concepts, principles, policies, guidelines, recommendations, standards, specifications and practices." The Good - EIF reconfirms that "The Digital Agenda can only take off if interoperability based on standards and open platforms is ensured" and also confirms that "The positive effect of open specifications is also demonstrated by the Internet ecosystem." - EIF takes a productive and pragmatic stance on openness: "In the context of the EIF, openness is the willingness of persons, organisations or other members of a community of interest to share knowledge and stimulate debate within that community, the ultimate goal being to advance knowledge and the use of this knowledge to solve problems" (p.11). "If the openness principle is applied in full: - All stakeholders have the same possibility of contributing to the development of the specification and public review is part of the decision-making process; - The specification is available for everybody to study; - Intellectual property rights related to the specification are licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software" (p. 26). - EIF is a formal Commission document. The former EIF 1.0 was a semi-formal deliverable from the PEGSCO, a working group of Member State representatives. - EIF tackles interoperability head-on and takes a clear stance: "Recommendation 22. When establishing European public services, public administrations should prefer open specifications, taking due account of the coverage of functional needs, maturity and market support." - The Commission will continue to support the National Interoperability Framework Observatory (NIFO), reconfirming the importance of coordinating such approaches across borders. - The Commission will align its internal interoperability strategy with the EIS through the eCommission initiative. - One cannot stress the importance of using open standards enough, whether in the context of open source or non-open source software. The EIF seems to have picked up on this fact: What does the EIF says about the relation between open specifications and open source software? The EIF introduces, as one of the characteristics of an open specification, the requirement that IPRs related to the specification have to be licensed on FRAND terms or on a royalty-free basis in a way that allows implementation in both proprietary and open source software. In this way, companies working under various business models can compete on an equal footing when providing solutions to public administrations while administrations that implement the standard in their own software (software that they own) can share such software with others under an open source licence if they so decide. - EIF is now among the center pieces of the Digital Agenda (even though this demands extensive inter-agency coordination in the Commission): "The EIS and the EIF will be maintained under the ISA Programme and kept in line with the results of other relevant Digital Agenda actions on interoperability and standards such as the ones on the reform of rules on implementation of ICT standards in Europe to allow use of certain ICT fora and consortia standards, on issuing guidelines on essential intellectual property rights and licensing conditions in standard-setting, including for ex-ante disclosure, and on providing guidance on the link between ICT standardisation and public procurement to help public authorities to use standards to promote efficiency and reduce lock-in.(Communication, p.7)" All in all, quite a few good things have happened to the document in the two years it has been on the shelf or was being re-written, depending on your perspective, in any case, awaiting the storms to calm. The Bad - While a certain pragmatism is required, and governments cannot migrate to full openness overnight, EIF gives a bit too much room for governments not to apply the openness principle in full. Plenty of reasons are given, which should maybe have been put as challenges to be overcome: "However, public administrations may decide to use less open specifications, if open specifications do not exist or do not meet functional interoperability needs. In all cases, specifications should be mature and sufficiently supported by the market, except if used in the context of creating innovative solutions". - EIF does not use the internationally established terminology: open standards. Rather, the EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification". How do "formalised specifications" relate to "standards"? According to the FAQ provided: The word "standard" has a specific meaning in Europe as defined by Directive 98/34/EC. Only technical specifications approved by a recognised standardisation body can be called a standard. Many ICT systems rely on the use of specifications developed by other organisations such as a forum or consortium. The EIF introduces the notion of "formalised specification", which is either a standard pursuant to Directive 98/34/EC or a specification established by ICT fora and consortia. The term "open specification" used in the EIF, on the one hand, avoids terminological confusion with the Directive and, on the other, states the main features that comply with the basic principle of openness laid down in the EIF for European Public Services. Well, this may be somewhat true, but in reality, Europe is 30 year behind in terminology. Unless the European Standardization Reform gets completed in the next few months, most Member States will likely conclude that they will go on referencing and using standards beyond those created by the three European endorsed monopolists of standardization, CEN, CENELEC and ETSI. Who can afford to begin following the strict Brussels rules for what they can call open standards when, in reality, standards stemming from global standardization organizations, so-called fora/consortia, dominate in the IT industry. What exactly is EIF saying? Does it encourage Member States to go on using non-ESO standards as long as they call it something else? I guess I am all for it, although it is a bit cumbersome, no? Why was there so much interest around the EIF? The FAQ attempts to explain: Some Member States have begun to adopt policies to achieve interoperability for their public services. These actions have had a significant impact on the ecosystem built around the provision of such services, e.g. providers of ICT goods and services, standardisation bodies, industry fora and consortia, etc... The Commission identified a clear need for action at European level to ensure that actions by individual Member States would not create new electronic barriers that would hinder the development of interoperable European public services. As a result, all stakeholders involved in the delivery of electronic public services in Europe have expressed their opinions on how to increase interoperability for public services provided by the different public administrations in Europe. Well, it does not take two years to read 50 consultation documents, and the EU Standardization Reform is not yet completed, so, more pragmatically, you finally had to release the document. Ok, let's leave some of that aside because the document is out and some people are happy (and others definitely not). The Verdict Considering the controversy, the delays, the lobbying, and the interests at stake both in the EU, in Member States and among vendors large and small, this document is pretty impressive. As with a good wine that has not yet come to full maturity, let's say that it seems to be coming in in the 85-88/100 range, but only a more fine-grained analysis, enjoyment in good company, and ultimately, implementation, will tell. The European Commission has today adopted a significant interoperability initiative to encourage public administrations across the EU to maximise the social and economic potential of information and communication technologies. Today, we should rally around this achievement. Tomorrow, let's sit down and figure out what it means for the future.

  Read the article

• One Exception to Aggregate Them All

  - by João Angelo

  .NET 4.0 introduced a new type of exception, the AggregateException which as the name implies allows to aggregate several exceptions inside a single throw-able exception instance. It is extensively used in the Task Parallel Library (TPL) and besides representing a simple collection of exceptions can also be used to represent a set of exceptions in a tree-like structure. Besides its InnerExceptions property which is a read-only collection of exceptions, the most relevant members of this new type are the methods Flatten and Handle. The former allows to flatten a tree hierarchy removing the need to recur while working with an aggregate exception. For example, if we would flatten the exception tree illustrated in the previous figure the result would be: The other method, Handle, accepts a predicate that is invoked for each aggregated exception and returns a boolean indicating if each exception is handled or not. If at least one exception goes unhandled then Handle throws a new AggregateException containing only the unhandled exceptions. The following code snippet illustrates this behavior and also another scenario where an aggregate exception proves useful – single threaded batch processing. static void Main() { try { ConvertAllToInt32("10", "x1x", "0", "II"); } catch (AggregateException errors) { // Contained exceptions are all FormatException // so Handle does not thrown any exception errors.Handle(e => e is FormatException); } try { ConvertAllToInt32("1", "1x", null, "-2", "#4"); } catch (AggregateException errors) { // Handle throws a new AggregateException containing // the exceptions for which the predicate failed. // In this case it will contain a single ArgumentNullException errors.Handle(e => e is FormatException); } } private static int[] ConvertAllToInt32(params string[] values) { var errors = new List<Exception>(); var integers = new List<int>(); foreach (var item in values) { try { integers.Add(Int32.Parse(item)); } catch (Exception e) { errors.Add(e); } } if (errors.Count > 0) throw new AggregateException(errors); return integers.ToArray(); }

  Read the article

• Why does a looser specification in an overriding method compile after the exception specification fo

  - by Everyone

  The code below has an overridden method with a looser exception specification as compared to the method being overridden. //AnotherMain.java public class AnotherMain { public void dummyMethod( String args[] ) throws IOException{ throw new IOException(); } } //SubAnotherMain.java public class SubAnotherMain extends AnotherMain{ @Override public void dummyMethod( String[] args ) throws Exception { // To get this to compile, change the above - throws IOException, Exception super.dummyMethod(args); throw new Exception("This will not compile unless the exception specification has IOException too"); } } Afaik, the overriding method should not compile at all as the looser specification might break substitutability. Why does it compile after the original exception specification is included in the override? What have I misunderstood?

  Read the article

• Determining exception type after the exception is caught?

  - by Brian R. Bondy

  Is there a way to determine the exception type even know you caught the exception with a catch all? Example: try { SomeBigFunction(); } catch(...) { //Determine exception type here }

  Read the article

• Abstract exception super type

  - by marcof

  If throwing System.Exception is considered so bad, why wasn't Exception made abstract in the first place? That way, it would not be possible to call: throw new Exception("Error occurred."); This would enforce using derived exceptions to provide more details about the error that occurred. For example, when I want to provide a custom exception hierarchy for a library, I usually declare an abstract base class for my exceptions: public abstract class CustomExceptionBase : Exception { /* some stuff here */ } And then some derived exception with a more specific purpose: public class DerivedCustomException : CustomExceptionBase { /* some more specific stuff here */ } Then when calling any library method, one could have this generic try/catch block to directly catch any error coming from the library: try { /* library calls here */ } catch (CustomExceptionBase ex) { /* exception handling */ } Is this a good practice? Would it be good if Exception was made abstract? EDIT : My point here is that even if an exception class is abstract, you can still catch it in a catch-all block. Making it abstract is only a way to forbid programmers to throw a "super-wide" exception. Usually, when you voluntarily throw an exception, you should know what type it is and why it happened. Thus enforcing to throw a more specific exception type.

  Read the article

• Distinguishing between .NET exception types

  - by Swingline Rage

  For the love of all things holy, how do you distinguish between different "exception flavors" within the predefined .NET exception classes? For example, a piece of code might throw an XmlException under the following conditions: The root element of the document is NULL Invalid chars are in the document The document is too long All of these are thrown as XmlException objects and all of the internal "tell me more about this exception" fields (such as Exception.HResult, Exception.Data, etc.) are usually empty or null. That leaves Exception.Message as the only thing that allows you to distinguish among these exception types, and you can't really depend on it because, you guessed it, the Exception.Message string is glocabilized, and can change when the culture changes. At least that's my read on the documentation. Exception.HResult and Exception.Data are widely ignored across the .NET libraries. They are the red-headed stepchildren of the world's .NET error-handling code. And even assuming they weren't, the HRESULT type is still the worst, downright nastiest error code in the history of error codes. Why we are still looking at HRESULTs in 2010 is beyond me. I mean if you're doing Interop or P/Invoke that's one thing but... HRESULTs have no place in System.Exception. HRESULTs are a wart on the proboscis of System.Exception. But seriously, it means I have to set up a lot of detailed specific error-handling code in order to figure out the same information that should have been passed as part of the exception data. Exceptions are useless if they force you to work like this. What am I doing wrong?

  Read the article

• Specification Pattern and Boolean Operator Precedence

  - by Anders Nielsen

  In our project, we have implemented the Specification Pattern with boolean operators (see DDD p 274), like so: public abstract class Rule { public Rule and(Rule rule) { return new AndRule(this, rule); } public Rule or(Rule rule) { return new OrRule(this, rule); } public Rule not() { return new NotRule(this); } public abstract boolean isSatisfied(T obj); } class AndRule extends Rule { private Rule one; private Rule two; AndRule(Rule one, Rule two) { this.one = one; this.two = two; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return one.isSatisfied(obj) && two.isSatisfied(obj); } } class OrRule extends Rule { private Rule one; private Rule two; OrRule(Rule one, Rule two) { this.one = one; this.two = two; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return one.isSatisfied(obj) || two.isSatisfied(obj); } } class NotRule extends Rule { private Rule rule; NotRule(Rule obj) { this.rule = obj; } public boolean isSatisfied(T obj) { return !rule.isSatisfied(obj); } } Which permits a nice expressiveness of the rules using method-chaining, but it doesn't support the standard operator precedence rules of which can lead to subtle errors. The following rules are not equivalent: Rule<Car> isNiceCar = isRed.and(isConvertible).or(isFerrari); Rule<Car> isNiceCar2 = isFerrari.or(isRed).and(isConvertible); The rule isNiceCar2 is not satisfied if the car is not a convertible, which can be confusing since if they were booleans isRed && isConvertible || isFerrari would be equivalent to isFerrari || isRed && isConvertible I realize that they would be equivalent if we rewrote isNiceCar2 to be isFerrari.or(isRed.and(isConvertible)), but both are syntactically correct. The best solution we can come up with, is to outlaw the method-chaining, and use constructors instead: OR(isFerrari, AND(isConvertible, isRed)) Does anyone have a better suggestion?

  Read the article

• Exception Handling Frequency/Log Detail

  - by Cyborgx37

  I am working on a fairly complex .NET application that interacts with another application. Many single-line statements are possible culprits for throwing an Exception and there is often nothing I can do to check the state before executing them to prevent these Exceptions. The question is, based on best practices and seasoned experience, how frequently should I lace my code with try/catch blocks? I've listed three examples below, but I'm open to any advice. I'm really hoping to get some pros/cons of various approaches. I can certainly come up with some of my own (greater log granularity for the O-C approach, better performance for the Monolithic approach), so I'm looking for experience over opinion. EDIT: I should add that this application is a batch program. The only "recovery" necessary in most cases is to log the error, clean up gracefully, and quit. So this could be seen to be as much a question of log granularity as exception handling. In my mind's eye I can imagine good reasons for both, so I'm looking for some general advice to help me find an appropriate balance. Monolitich Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } public static void Step2(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } public static void Step3(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } } Delegated Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Obsessive-Compulsive Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Other approaches welcomed and encouraged. Above are examples only.

  Read the article

• Catches communication exception instead of custom fault exception - WCF

  - by Ismail S

  On Server I'm throwing the exception like this. catch(SqlException exception) { if (exception.Message.Contains("Custom error from stored proc")) { //Exception to be thrown when authentication fails. throw new FaultException<MyServiceFault>(new MyServiceFault { MessageText = exception.Message }); } } And on client end I'm catching the exception catch(FaultException<MyServiceFault> faultException) { } Here is my MyServiceFault [DataContract] public class MyServiceFault { [DataMember] public string MessageText { get; set; } [DataMember] public Guid Id { get; set; } } The problem is that on client, it doesn't go to MyServiceFault catch block instead it goes to communication exception catch block and throws this error System.ServiceModel.CommunicationException: The underlying connection was closed: The connection was closed unexpectedly. ---> System.Net.WebException I've also decorated my service method [FaultContract(typeof(MyServiceFault))] in the interface which is implemented by my service. In my web.config servicebehaviour tag consist <serviceDebug includeExceptionDetailInFaults="true" /> Any idea where I'm going wrong

  Read the article

• Exception handling policy in libraries

  - by Asaf R

  When building a .NET library, what's your exception handling policy? In specific, what's your policy about handling exceptions inside library calls and exposing them to calling code? Would you treat a library function as any other, thus letting all exceptions it can't handle flow out of it as-is? Would you create a custom exception for that library? Would you catch all exceptions and throw the library's exception instead? Would you set the original exception as the library's exception internal exception? How would the library dependence on a DB affect your exception-handling policy? What other guidelines and rules would you suggest?

  Read the article

• Central Exception Handler

  - by J-unior

  Recently I've been thinking about a general ExceptionHandler, that I could initialize once in my app context and inject it everywhere. The idea that it will have quite simple interface with just public void handle(Exception ex), and then according to exception type it should decide what to do, maybe just log it, or show an alert message to the user, or maybe kill the whole app. The question is, what is the prettiest way to write such handler without lots of instanceofs? Unfortunately googling gives me only the default exception handler for RuntimeException that was introduced in Java 5. My first idea is to create an enum, that will have Class field for exception type and it will return the appropriate execution point, for example a concrete exception handler that also implements the interface public void handle(Exception ex), but with the required casting already.

  Read the article

• Exception handling within an Exception in C#

  - by Shrewd Demon

  hi, i know this could be a little weird but a doubt is a doubt afterall... what would happen in the following situation... private void SendMail() { try { //i try to send a mail and it throws an exception } catch(Exception ex) { //so i will handle that exception over here //and since an exception occurred while sending a mail //i will log an event with the eventlog //All i want to know is what if an exception occurs here //while writing the error log, how should i handle it?? } } Thank you.

  Read the article

• What happens if my IExceptionPublisher throws an Exception?

  - by Graphain

  Hi, I'm using the .NET Exception Management Application Block (EMAB). As part of this I am implementing IExceptionPublisher classes. However, I am wondering what happens if these publishers encounter an Exception. I had a bit of a look around and apparently they are meant to do something like this: try { /* Normal Exception Publishing */ } catch { ExceptionManager.PublishInternalException(exception, additionalInfo); } Source: One caveat: what happens if there is an exception in our custom publisher code, preventing the publishing to MSMQ? For that, we turn to the ExceptionManager.PublishInternalException method, which will publish the exception to the default publisher, which is the Windows application event log. However, PublishInternalException is both protected and internal so I would have to be implementing ExceptionManager, not IExceptionPublisher, to access it.

  Read the article

• Globally Log Catch Exception e

  - by sqlBugs

  Suppose that I have a legacy java application with thousands of lines of code which do: try { // stuff } catch (Exception e) { // eat the exception } Is there any global option that I could flip or 3rd party JAR which would log all "eaten" exceptions? I know that I could do a massive find replace (search for catch (Exception e) { and replace it with catch(Exception e) { logException(e);) but I was wondering if there was a better solution. Thanks!

  Read the article

• Exception.Data population bug?

  - by Christopher

  Okay, .NET geniuses, here's the relevant part of my code: adapter.Fill(table); return; } catch(Exception ex) { SqlException sqlEx = ex as SqlException; I have an exception that's being thrown by adapter.Fill(), and when I put a breakpoint on the first line in the exception handler, the Exception.Data property already contains a key that is unique to my application. The thing is that it does not happen every time, but only when this exception is thrown within ~2 seconds of it last being thrown. Explain that!! :) Thanks!

  Read the article

• Multiple Exception Handlers for one exception type

  - by danish

  I am using Enterprose Library 4.1. I have created a custom exception handler called CustomHandler. This is how the configuration section would look like: <exceptionHandling> <exceptionPolicies> <add name="Exception Policy"> <exceptionTypes> <add type="System.Exception, mscorlib, Version=2.0.0.0, Culture=neutral, PublicKeyToken=b77a5c561934e089" postHandlingAction="NotifyRethrow" name="Exception"> <exceptionHandlers> <add type="WindowsFormsApplication1.CustomHandler, WindowsFormsApplication1" name="Custom Handler" /> <add exceptionMessage="Some test mesage." exceptionMessageResourceName="" exceptionMessageResourceType="" replaceExceptionType="Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.ExceptionHandling.ExceptionHandlingException, Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.ExceptionHandling" type="Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.ExceptionHandling.ReplaceHandler, Microsoft.Practices.EnterpriseLibrary.ExceptionHandling" name="Replace Handler" /> </exceptionHandlers> </add> </exceptionTypes> </add> </exceptionPolicies> </exceptionHandling> There are two handlers for same exception type. What I want is that based on a certain condition one of the handlers should handle the exception. Any ideas how that can be done? Is there a way to call the other handler from inside the HandleException method of the custom handler based on some condition?

  Read the article

• Capturing unhandled exceptions in .Net 2.0. Wrong event called.

  - by SoMoS

  Hello, I'm investigating a bit about how the unhandled exceptions are managed in .Net and I'm getting unexpected results that I would like to share with you to see what do you think about. The first one is pretty simple to see. I wrote this code to do the test, just a button that throws an Exception on the same thread that created the Form: Public Class Form1 Private Sub Button1_Click(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles Button1.Click Throw New Exception() End Sub Private Sub UnhandledException(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As UnhandledExceptionEventArgs) MsgBox(String.Format("Exception: {0}. Ending: {1}. AppDomain: {2}", CType(e.ExceptionObject, Exception).Message, e.IsTerminating.ToString(), AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName)) End Sub Private Sub UnhandledThreadException(ByVal sender As Object, ByVal e As System.Threading.ThreadExceptionEventArgs) MsgBox(String.Format("Exception: {0}. AppDomain: {1}", e.Exception.Message(), AppDomain.CurrentDomain.FriendlyName)) End Sub Private Sub Form1_Load(ByVal sender As System.Object, ByVal e As System.EventArgs) Handles MyBase.Load AddHandler AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException, AddressOf UnhandledException AddHandler Application.ThreadException, AddressOf UnhandledThreadException End Sub End Class When I execute the code inside the Visual Studio the UnhandledException is called as expected but when I execute the application from Windows the UndhanledThreadException is called instead. ¿?¿?¿¿?¿? Someone has any idea of what can be happening here? Thanks in advance.

  Read the article

• Java exception handling in non sequential tasks (pattern/good practice)

  - by Hernán Eche

  There are some task that should't be done in parallel, (for example opening a file, reading, writing, and closing, there is an order on that...) But... Some task are more like a shoping list, I mean they could have a desirable order but it's not a must..example in communication or loading independient drivers etc.. For that kind of tasks, I would like to know a java best practice or pattern for manage exceptions.. The java simple way is: getUFO { try { loadSoundDriver(); loadUsbDriver(); loadAlienDetectorDriver(); loadKeyboardDriver(); } catch (loadSoundDriverFailed) { doSomethingA; } catch (loadUsbDriverFailed) { doSomethingB; } catch (loadAlienDetectorDriverFailed) { doSomethingC; } catch (loadKeyboardDriverFailed) { doSomethingD; } } But what about having an exception in one of the actions but wanting to try with the next ones?? I've thought this approach, but don't seem to be a good use for exceptions I don't know if it works, doesn't matter, it's really awful!! getUFO { Exception ex=null; try { try{ loadSoundDriver(); }catch (Exception e) { ex=e; } try{ loadUsbDriver(); }catch (Exception e) { ex=e; } try{ loadAlienDetectorDriver(); }catch (Exception e) { ex=e; } try{ loadKeyboardDriver() }catch (Exception e) { ex=e; } close the file; if(ex!=null) { throw ex; } } catch (loadSoundDriverFailed) { doSomethingA; } catch (loadUsbDriverFailed) { doSomethingB; } catch (loadAlienDetectorDriverFailed) { doSomethingC; } catch (loadKeyboardDriverFailed) { doSomethingD; } } seems not complicated to find a better practice for doing that.. I still didn't thanks for any advice

  Read the article

• what is difference between Exception handling Application block & Exception handling

  - by Lalit

  what is difference between Exception handling Application block & Exception handling in regular dot net classes ? i don't think it is beneficial to use of Exception handling Application block. What is exact use of that block ??

  Read the article

• Handle Arbitrary Exception, Print Default Exception Message

  - by inspectorG4dget

  I have a program, a part of which executes a loop. During the execution of this loop, there are exceptions. Obviously, I would like my program to run without errors, but for the sake of progress, I would like the program to execute over the entire input and not stop when an exception is thrown. The easiest way to do this would be by implementing and except block. However, when I do this, it excepts all exceptions and continues with the program and I never get to see the exception message (which I need in order to debug). Is there a way to except any arbitrary exception and be able to print out the exception message in the except block?

  Read the article

• Avoiding first chance exception messages when the exception is safely handled

  - by CVertex

  The following bit of code catches the EOS Exception using (var reader = new BinaryReader(httpRequestBodyStream)) { try { while (true) { bodyByteList.Add(reader.ReadByte()); } } catch (EndOfStreamException) { } } So why do I still receive first-chance exceptions in my console? A first chance exception of type 'System.IO.EndOfStreamException' occurred in mscorlib.dll Is there a way to hide these first chance exception messages?

  Read the article

• Throwing a new exception while throwing an old exception

  - by FredOverflow

  If a destructor throws in C++ during stack unwinding caused by an exception, the program terminates. (That's why destructors should never throw in C++.) If a finally block is entered in Java because of an exception in the corresponding try block and that finally block throws another exception, the first exception is silently swallowed. This question crossed my mind: Could a programming language handle multiple exceptions being thrown at the same time? Would that be useful? Have you ever missed that ability? Is there a language that already supports this? Is there any experience with such an approach? Any thoughts?

  Read the article

• Catch Exception only in release

  - by Cicik

  HI, I have one global generic exception handler(catch ex as Exception) for all unhandled exceptions from application. But in debug mode(app runs from VS) I don`t want that exceptions go to this global handler. Better for me is when VS stops app on place when exception occurs. How can I do this, or is there some better approach for this? thanks

  Read the article

• How to Determine The Module a Particular Exception Class is Defined In

  - by doug

  Note: i edited my Q (in the title) so that it better reflects what i actually want to know. In the original title and in the text of my Q, i referred to the source of the thrown exception; what i meant, and what i should have referred to, as pointed out in one of the high-strung but otherwise helpful response below, is the module that the exception class is defined in. This is evidenced by the fact that, again, as pointed out in one of the answers below the answer to the original Q is that the exceptions were thrown from calls to cursor.execute and cursor.next, respectively--which of course, isn't the information you need to write the try/except block. For instance (the Q has nothing specifically to do with SQLite or the PySQLite module): from pysqlite2 import dbapi2 as SQ try: cursor.execute('CREATE TABLE pname (id INTEGER PRIMARY KEY, name VARCHARS(50)') except SQ.OperationalError: print("{0}, {1}".format("table already exists", "... 'CREATE' ignored")) # cursor.execute('SELECT * FROM pname') while 1: try: print(cursor.next()) except StopIteration: break # i let both snippets error out to see the exception thrown, then coded the try/finally blocks--but that didn't tell me anything about which module the exception class is defined. In my example, there's only a single imported module, but where there are many more, i am interested to know how an experienced pythonista identifies the exception source (search-the-docs-till-i-happen-to-find-it is my current method). [And yes i am aware there's a nearly identical question on SO--but for C# rather than python, plus if you read the author's edited version, you'll see he's got a different problem in mind.]

  Read the article

• Exception handling problem in release mode

  - by lama-power

  I have application with this code: Module Startup <STAThread()> _ Public Sub Main() Try Application.EnableVisualStyles() Application.SetCompatibleTextRenderingDefault(False) InitApp() Dim login As New LoginForm() Dim main As New MainForm() Application.Run(login) If login.DialogResult = DialogResult.OK Then ActUser = login.LoggedUser main.ShowDialog() End If DisposeApp() Catch ex As Exception ErrMsg(ex, "Error!", ErrorLogger.ErrMsgType.CriticalError) End End Try End Sub End Module in debug mode everithing is OK. But in release mode when somewhere in application exception occurs my global catch in Main method doesn`t catch exception. What is the problem please?

  Read the article

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >