Search Results

Search found 6686 results on 268 pages for 'catch'.

Page 15/268 | < Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >

  • Why would a error get thrown inside my try-catch?

    - by George Johnston
    I'm pushing a copy of our application over to a new dev server (IIS7) and the application is blowing up on a line inside of a try-catch block. It doesn't happen locally, it actually obey's the rules of a try-catch block, go figure. Any idea why this would be happening? Shouldn't it just be failing silently? Is there something environmental I need to enable/disable? Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. Line 229: Try Line 230: Here >> : _MemoryStream.Seek(6 * StartOffset, 0) Line 232: _MemoryStream.Read(_Buffer, 0, 6) Line 233: Catch ex As IOException End Try Although it doesn't matter for answering this question, I thought I would mention that it's third party code for the Geo IP lookup.

    Read the article

  • Using a general class for execution with try/catch/finally?

    - by antirysm
    I find myself having a lot of this in different methods in my code: try { runABunchOfMethods(); } catch (Exception ex) { logger.Log(ex); } What about creating this: public static class Executor { private static ILogger logger; public delegate void ExecuteThis(); static Executor() { // logger = ...GetLoggerFromIoC(); } public static void Execute(ExecuteThis executeThis) { try { executeThis(); } catch (Exception ex) { logger.Log(ex); } } } And just using it like this: private void RunSomething() { Method1(someClassVar); Method2(someOtherClassVar); } ... Executor.Execute(RunSomething); Are there any downsides to this approach? (You could add Executor-methods and delegates when you want a finally and use generics for the type of Exeception you want to catch...)

    Read the article

  • What is the best practice in C# to propagate an exception thrown in a finally block without loosing an exception from a catch block?

    - by Sergey Smolnikov
    When an exception is possible to be thrown in a finally block how to propagate both exceptions - from catch and from finally? As a possible solution - using an AggregateException: internal class MyClass { public void Do() { Exception exception = null; try { //example of an error occured in main logic throw new InvalidOperationException(); } catch (Exception e) { exception = e; throw; } finally { try { //example of an error occured in finally throw new AccessViolationException(); } catch (Exception e) { if (exception != null) throw new AggregateException(exception, e); throw; } } } }

    Read the article

  • Is there a way to determine gaps in try/catch coverage?

    - by Mike Pateras
    I'm debugging a service that's experiencing some problems on start-up. To aid me in this, I'm wrapping pretty much everything in a try/catch block, and writing any errors to a file. I don't want to put them in every method, I just want to put them in the highest level methods so that they catch exceptions from other methods. Something is getting through, though, as the service does stop under some conditions. Is there a way to determine where the gaps in my try/catch coverage are, other than by sight?

    Read the article

  • Why Does try ... catch Blocks Require Braces?

    - by Bidou
    Hello. While in other statements like if ... else you can avoid braces if there is only one instruction in a block, you cannot do that with try ... catch blocks: the compiler doesn't buy it. For instance: try do_something_risky(); catch (...) std::cerr << "Blast!" << std::endl; With the code above, g++ simply says it expects a '{' before do_something_risky(). Why this difference of behavior between try ... catch and, say, if ... else ? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Why Do try ... catch Blocks Require Braces?

    - by Bidou
    Hello. While in other statements like if ... else you can avoid braces if there is only one instruction in a block, you cannot do that with try ... catch blocks: the compiler doesn't buy it. For instance: try do_something_risky(); catch (...) std::cerr << "Blast!" << std::endl; With the code above, g++ simply says it expects a '{' before do_something_risky(). Why this difference of behavior between try ... catch and, say, if ... else ? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to catch exception in the main thread if the exception occurs in the secondary thread?

    - by Ashish Ashu
    How to catch exception in the main thread if the exception occurs in the secondary thread? The code snippet for the scenario is given below: private void button1_Click(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { Thread th1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Test)); th1.Start(); } catch (Exception) { } } void Test() { for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) { Thread.Sleep(100); if (i == 2) throw new MyException(); } } }

    Read the article

  • Why would an error get thrown inside my try-catch?

    - by George Johnston
    Why would my try-catch block still be throwing an error when it's handled? Exception Details: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object. Try Here >> : _MemoryStream.Seek(6 * StartOffset, 0) _MemoryStream.Read(_Buffer, 0, 6) Catch ex As IOException // Handle Error End Try Edit: Cleaned the question up to remove the extraneous information.

    Read the article

  • How do I 'globally' catch exceptions thrown in object instances.

    - by SleepyBobos
    I am currently writing a winforms application (C#). I am making use of the Enterprise Library Exception Handling Block, following a fairly standard approach from what I can see. IE : In the Main method of Program.cs I have wired up event handler to Application.ThreadException event etc. This approach works well and handles the applications exceptional circumstances. In one of my business objects I throw various exceptions in the Set accessor of one of the objects properties set { if (value > MaximumTrim) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("The value of the minimum trim..."); if (!availableSubMasterWidthSatisfiesAllPatterns(value)) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("Another message..."); _minimumTrim = value; } My logic for this approach (without turning this into a 'when to throw exceptions' discussion) is simply that the business objects are responsible for checking business rule constraints and throwing an exception that can bubble up and be caught as required. It should be noted that in the UI of my application I do explictly check the values that the public property is being set to (and take action there displaying friendly dialog etc) but with throwing the exception I am also covering the situation where my business object may not be used by a UI eg : the Property is being set by another business object for example. Anyway I think you all get the idea. My issue is that these exceptions are not being caught by the handler wired up to Application.ThreadException and I don't understand why. From other reading I have done the Application.ThreadException event and it handler "... catches any exception that occurs on the main GUI thread". Are the exceptions being raised in my business object not in this thread? I have not created any new threads. I can get the approach to work if I update the code as follows, explicity calling the event handler that is wired to Application.ThreadException. This is the approach outlined in Enterprise Library samples. However this approach requires me to wrap any exceptions thrown in a try catch, something I was trying to avoid by using a 'global' handler to start with. try { if (value > MaximumTrim) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("The value of the minimum..."); if (!availableSubMasterWidthSatisfiesAllPatterns(value)) throw new CustomExceptions.InvalidTrimValue("Another message"); _minimumTrim = value; } catch (Exception ex) { Program.ThreadExceptionHandler.ProcessUnhandledException(ex); } I have also investigated using wiring a handler up to AppDomain.UnhandledException event but this does not catch the exceptions either. I would be good if someone could explain to me why my exceptions are not being caught by my global exception handler in the first code sample. Is there another approach I am missing or am I stuck with wrapping code in try catch, shown above, as required?

    Read the article

  • Why do I get CA1806 when I catch exception in C++/CLI?

    - by brickner
    I've recently upgraded my project from Visual Studio 2008 to Visual Studio 2010. By enabling Code Analysis and compiling in Release, I'm getting warning CA1806: Do not ignore method results. I've managed to reduce the code that produces the warning to this code: .h file: public ref class Foo { public: void Bar(); }; .cpp file: void Foo::Bar() { try { } catch (const std::exception&) // here I get the warning { } } the warning: CA1806 : Microsoft.Usage : 'Foo::Bar(void)' calls 'Global::__CxxRegisterExceptionObject(void*, void*)' but does not use the HRESULT or error code that the method returns. This could lead to unexpected behavior in error conditions or low-resource situations. Use the result in a conditional statement, assign the result to a variable, or pass it as an argument to another method. If I try to use the exception value or do catch(...) the warning still appears. If I catch managed exceptions instead or compile in Debug I don't get the warning. Why do I get this warning? UPDATE I've decided to open a bug report on Microsoft Connect.

    Read the article

  • Java: how to have try-catch as conditional in for-loop?

    - by HH
    I know how to solve the problem by comparing size to an upper bound but I want a conditional that look for an exception. If an exception occur in conditinal, I want to exit. import java.io.*; import java.util.*; public class listTest{ public static void main(String[] args){ Stack<Integer> numbs=new Stack<Integer>(); numbs.push(1); numbs.push(2); for(int count=0,j=0;try{((j=numbs.pop())<999)}catch(Exception e){break;}&& !numbs.isEmpty(); ){ System.out.println(j); } // I waited for 1 to be printed, not 2. } } Some Errors javac listTest.java listTest.java:10: illegal start of expression for(int count=0,j=0;try{((j=numbs.pop())<999)}catch(Exception e){break;}&& ^ listTest.java:10: illegal start of expression for(int count=0,j=0;try{((j=numbs.pop())<999)}catch(Exception e){break;}&& ^

    Read the article

  • How i finding Internate network error using Try..........Catch in iphone?

    - by Rajendra Bhole
    Hi, I developing an application in which i calling web services on iphone. I want to implement Try.......Catch in that code for catching internet and GPRS connection error.The code is as follow, NSMutableURLRequest *request = [[[NSMutableURLRequest alloc] init] autorelease]; [request setURL:[NSURL URLWithString:mainURL5]]; [request setHTTPMethod:@"POST"]; NSHTTPURLResponse* urlResponse = nil; NSError *error = [[[NSError alloc] init] autorelease]; NSData *responseData = [NSURLConnection sendSynchronousRequest:request returningResponse:&urlResponse error:&error]; result5 = [[NSMutableString alloc] initWithData:responseData encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; I was using Try......catch but it didn't work that code as follows, @try { //prepar request NSMutableURLRequest *request = [[[NSMutableURLRequest alloc] init] autorelease]; [request setURL:[NSURL URLWithString:mainURL5]]; [request setHTTPMethod:@"POST"]; NSHTTPURLResponse* urlResponse = nil; NSError *error = [[[NSError alloc] init] autorelease]; NSData *responseData = [NSURLConnection sendSynchronousRequest:request returningResponse:&urlResponse error:&error]; result5 = [[NSMutableString alloc] initWithData:responseData encoding:NSUTF8StringEncoding]; } @catch(NSException * e) { [clsMessageBox ShowMessageOK:@"some text" :[e reason]]; }

    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

  • How do I catch this WPF Bitmap loading exception?

    - by mmr
    I'm developing an application that loads bitmaps off of the web using .NET 3.5 sp1 and C#. The loading code looks like: try { CurrentImage = pics[unChosenPics[index]]; bi = new BitmapImage(CurrentImage.URI); // BitmapImage.UriSource must be in a BeginInit/EndInit block. bi.DownloadCompleted += new EventHandler(bi_DownloadCompleted); AssessmentImage.Source = bi; } catch { System.Console.WriteLine("Something broke during the read!"); } and the code to load on bi_DownloadCompleted is: void bi_DownloadCompleted(object sender, EventArgs e) { try { double dpi = 96; int width = bi.PixelWidth; int height = bi.PixelHeight; int stride = width * 4; // 4 bytes per pixel byte[] pixelData = new byte[stride * height]; bi.CopyPixels(pixelData, stride, 0); BitmapSource bmpSource = BitmapSource.Create(width, height, dpi, dpi, PixelFormats.Bgra32, null, pixelData, stride); AssessmentImage.Source = bmpSource; Loading.Visibility = Visibility.Hidden; AssessmentImage.Visibility = Visibility.Visible; } catch { System.Console.WriteLine("Exception when viewing bitmap."); } } Every so often, an image comes along that breaks the reader. I guess that's to be expected. However, rather than being caught by either of those try/catch blocks, the exception is apparently getting thrown outside of where I can handle it. I could handle it using global WPF exceptions, like this SO question. However, that will seriously mess up the control flow of my program, and I'd like to avoid that if at all possible. I have to do the double source assignment because it appears that many images are lacking in width/height parameters in the places where the microsoft bitmap loader expects them to be. So, the first assignment appears to force the download, and the second assignment gets the dpi/image dimensions happen properly. What can I do to catch and handle this exception? Stack trace: at MS.Internal.HRESULT.Check(Int32 hr) at System.Windows.Media.Imaging.BitmapFrameDecode.get_ColorContexts() at System.Windows.Media.Imaging.BitmapImage.FinalizeCreation() at System.Windows.Media.Imaging.BitmapImage.OnDownloadCompleted(Object sender, EventArgs e) at System.Windows.Media.UniqueEventHelper.InvokeEvents(Object sender, EventArgs args) at System.Windows.Media.Imaging.LateBoundBitmapDecoder.DownloadCallback(Object arg) at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.InternalRealCall(Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter) at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.TryCatchWhen(Object source, Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler) at System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherOperation.InvokeImpl() at System.Threading.ExecutionContext.runTryCode(Object userData) at System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeHelpers.ExecuteCodeWithGuaranteedCleanup(TryCode code, CleanupCode backoutCode, Object userData) at System.Threading.ExecutionContext.Run(ExecutionContext executionContext, ContextCallback callback, Object state) at System.Windows.Threading.DispatcherOperation.Invoke() at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.ProcessQueue() at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.WndProcHook(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam, Boolean& handled) at MS.Win32.HwndWrapper.WndProc(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam, Boolean& handled) at MS.Win32.HwndSubclass.DispatcherCallbackOperation(Object o) at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.InternalRealCall(Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter) at System.Windows.Threading.ExceptionWrapper.TryCatchWhen(Object source, Delegate callback, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter, Delegate catchHandler) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.InvokeImpl(DispatcherPriority priority, TimeSpan timeout, Delegate method, Object args, Boolean isSingleParameter) at MS.Win32.HwndSubclass.SubclassWndProc(IntPtr hwnd, Int32 msg, IntPtr wParam, IntPtr lParam) at MS.Win32.UnsafeNativeMethods.DispatchMessage(MSG& msg) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.TranslateAndDispatchMessage(MSG& msg) at System.Windows.Threading.Dispatcher.PushFrameImpl(DispatcherFrame frame) at System.Windows.Application.RunInternal(Window window) at LensComparison.App.Main() in C:\Users\Mark64\Documents\Visual Studio 2008\Projects\LensComparison\LensComparison\obj\Release\App.g.cs:line 48 at System.AppDomain._nExecuteAssembly(Assembly assembly, String[] args) at Microsoft.VisualStudio.HostingProcess.HostProc.RunUsersAssembly() at System.Threading.ExecutionContext.Run(ExecutionContext executionContext, ContextCallback callback, Object state) at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart()

    Read the article

  • read text file from phone memory in android

    - by Sudhakar
    Hi..I just wanna create a text file into phone memory and have to read its content to display.Now i created a text file.But its not present in the path data/data/package-name/file name.txt & it didn't display the content on emulator. My code is.. public class PhonememAct extends Activity { /** Called when the activity is first created. */ @Override public void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) { super.onCreate(savedInstanceState); TextView tv=(TextView)findViewById(R.id.tv); FileOutputStream fos = null; try { fos = openFileOutput("Test.txt", Context.MODE_PRIVATE); } catch (FileNotFoundException e2) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e2.printStackTrace(); } try { fos.write("Hai..".getBytes()); } catch (IOException e1) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e1.printStackTrace(); } try { fos.close(); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } FileInputStream fis = null; try { fis = openFileInput("Test.txt"); } catch (FileNotFoundException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } int c; try { while((c=fis.read())!=-1) { tv.setText(c); setContentView(tv); //k += (char)c; } } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } try { fis.close(); } catch (IOException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } } } Thanks in adv.

    Read the article

  • Isn't it better to use a single try catch instead of tons of TryParsing and other error handling sometimes?

    - by Ryan Peschel
    I know people say it's bad to use exceptions for flow control and to only use exceptions for exceptional situations, but sometimes isn't it just cleaner and more elegant to wrap the entire block in a try-catch? For example, let's say I have a dialog window with a TextBox where the user can type input in to be parsed in a key-value sort of manner. This situation is not as contrived as you might think because I've inherited code that has to handle this exact situation (albeit not with farm animals). Consider this wall of code: class Animals { public int catA, catB; public float dogA, dogB; public int mouseA, mouseB, mouseC; public double cow; } class Program { static void Main(string[] args) { string input = "Sets all the farm animals CAT 3 5 DOG 21.3 5.23 MOUSE 1 0 1 COW 12.25"; string[] splitInput = input.Split(' '); string[] animals = { "CAT", "DOG", "MOUSE", "COW", "CHICKEN", "GOOSE", "HEN", "BUNNY" }; Animals animal = new Animals(); for (int i = 0; i < splitInput.Length; i++) { string token = splitInput[i]; if (animals.Contains(token)) { switch (token) { case "CAT": animal.catA = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); animal.catB = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 2]); break; case "DOG": animal.dogA = float.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); animal.dogB = float.Parse(splitInput[i + 2]); break; case "MOUSE": animal.mouseA = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); animal.mouseB = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 2]); animal.mouseC = int.Parse(splitInput[i + 3]); break; case "COW": animal.cow = double.Parse(splitInput[i + 1]); break; } } } } } In actuality there are a lot more farm animals and more handling than that. A lot of things can go wrong though. The user could enter in the wrong number of parameters. The user can enter the input in an incorrect format. The user could specify numbers too large or too small for the data type to handle. All these different errors could be handled without exceptions through the use of TryParse, checking how many parameters the user tried to use for a specific animal, checking if the parameter is too large or too small for the data type (because TryParse just returns 0), but every one should result in the same thing: A MessageBox appearing telling the user that the inputted data is invalid and to fix it. My boss doesn't want different message boxes for different errors. So instead of doing all that, why not just wrap the block in a try-catch and in the catch statement just display that error message box and let the user try again? Maybe this isn't the best example but think of any other scenario where there would otherwise be tons of error handling that could be substituted for a single try-catch. Is that not the better solution?

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Exception handler semantics

    - by Simon Cooper
    In my blog posts on fault and filter exception handlers, I said that the same behaviour could be replicated using normal catch blocks. Well, that isn't entirely true... Changing the handler semantics Consider the following: .try { .try { .try { newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor() // IL for: // e.Data.Add("DictKey", true) throw } fault { ldstr "1: Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) endfault } } filter { ldstr "2a: Filter logic" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) // IL for: // (bool)((Exception)e).Data["DictKey"] endfilter }{ ldstr "2b: Filter handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } } catch object { ldstr "3: Catch handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } Return: // rest of method If the filter handler is engaged (true is inserted into the exception dictionary) then the filter handler gets engaged, and the following gets printed to the console: 2a: Filter logic 1: Fault handler 2b: Filter handler and if the filter handler isn't engaged, then the following is printed: 2a:Filter logic 1: Fault handler 3: Catch handler Filter handler execution The filter handler is executed first. Hmm, ok. Well, what happens if we replaced the fault block with the C# equivalent (with the exception dictionary value set to false)? .try { // throw exception } catch object { ldstr "1: Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) rethrow } we get this: 1: Fault handler 2a: Filter logic 3: Catch handler The fault handler is executed first, instead of the filter block. Eh? This change in behaviour is due to the way the CLR searches for exception handlers. When an exception is thrown, the CLR stops execution of the thread, and searches up the stack for an exception handler that can handle the exception and stop it propagating further - catch or filter handlers. It checks the type clause of catch clauses, and executes the code in filter blocks to see if the filter can handle the exception. When the CLR finds a valid handler, it saves the handler's location, then goes back to where the exception was thrown and executes fault and finally blocks between there and the handler location, discarding stack frames in the process, until it reaches the handler. So? By replacing a fault with a catch, we have changed the semantics of when the filter code is executed; by using a rethrow instruction, we've split up the exception handler search into two - one search to find the first catch, then a second when the rethrow instruction is encountered. This is only really obvious when mixing C# exception handlers with fault or filter handlers, so this doesn't affect code written only in C#. However it could cause some subtle and hard-to-debug effects with object initialization and ordering when using and calling code written in a language that can compile fault and filter handlers.

    Read the article

  • Subterranean IL: Fault exception handlers

    - by Simon Cooper
    Fault event handlers are one of the two handler types that aren't available in C#. It behaves exactly like a finally, except it is only run if control flow exits the block due to an exception being thrown. As an example, take the following method: .method public static void FaultExample(bool throwException) { .try { ldstr "Entering try block" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) ldarg.0 brfalse.s NormalReturn ThrowException: ldstr "Throwing exception" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) newobj void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor() throw NormalReturn: ldstr "Leaving try block" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) leave.s Return } fault { ldstr "Fault handler" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) endfault } Return: ldstr "Returning from method" call void [mscorlib]System.Console::WriteLine(string) ret } If we pass true to this method the following gets printed: Entering try block Throwing exception Fault handler and the exception gets passed up the call stack. So, the exception gets thrown, the fault handler gets run, and the exception propagates up the stack afterwards in the normal way. If we pass false, we get the following: Entering try block Leaving try block Returning from method Because we are leaving the .try using a leave.s instruction, and not throwing an exception, the fault handler does not get called. Fault handlers and C# So why were these not included in C#? It seems a pretty simple feature; one extra keyword that compiles in exactly the same way, and with the same semantics, as a finally handler. If you think about it, the same behaviour can be replicated using a normal catch block: try { throw new Exception(); } catch { // fault code goes here throw; } The catch block only gets run if an exception is thrown, and the exception gets rethrown and propagates up the call stack afterwards; exactly like a fault block. The only complications that occur is when you want to add a fault handler to a try block with existing catch handlers. Then, you either have to wrap the try in another try: try { try { // ... } catch (DirectoryNotFoundException) { // ... // leave.s as normal... } catch (IOException) { // ... throw; } } catch { // fault logic throw; } or separate out the fault logic into another method and call that from the appropriate handlers: try { // ... } catch (DirectoryNotFoundException ) { // ... } catch (IOException ioe) { // ... HandleFaultLogic(); throw; } catch (Exception e) { HandleFaultLogic(); throw; } To be fair, the number of times that I would have found a fault handler useful is minimal. Still, it's quite annoying knowing such functionality exists, but you're not able to access it from C#. Fortunately, there are some easy workarounds one can use instead. Next time: filter handlers.

    Read the article

  • How do encrypt a long or int using the Bouncy Castle crypto routines for BlackBerry?

    - by DanG
    How do encrypt/decrypt a long or int using the Bouncy Castle crypto routines for BlackBerry? I know how to encrypt/decrypt a String. I can encrypt a long but can't get a long to decrypt properly. Some of this is poorly done, but I'm just trying stuff out at the moment. I've included my entire crypto engine here: import org.bouncycastle.crypto.BufferedBlockCipher; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.DataLengthException; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.InvalidCipherTextException; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.engines.AESFastEngine; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.paddings.PaddedBufferedBlockCipher; import org.bouncycastle.crypto.params.KeyParameter; public class CryptoEngine { // Global Variables // Global Objects private static AESFastEngine engine; private static BufferedBlockCipher cipher; private static KeyParameter key; public static boolean setEncryptionKey(String keyText) { // adding in spaces to force a proper key keyText += " "; // cutting off at 128 bits (16 characters) keyText = keyText.substring(0, 16); keyText = HelperMethods.cleanUpNullString(keyText); byte[] keyBytes = keyText.getBytes(); key = new KeyParameter(keyBytes); engine = new AESFastEngine(); cipher = new PaddedBufferedBlockCipher(engine); // just for now return true; } public static String encryptString(String plainText) { try { byte[] plainArray = plainText.getBytes(); cipher.init(true, key); byte[] cipherBytes = new byte[cipher.getOutputSize(plainArray.length)]; int cipherLength = cipher.processBytes(plainArray, 0, plainArray.length, cipherBytes, 0); cipher.doFinal(cipherBytes, cipherLength); String cipherString = new String(cipherBytes); return cipherString; } catch (DataLengthException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalStateException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (InvalidCipherTextException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (Exception ex) { Logger.logToConsole(ex); } // else return "";// default bad value } public static String decryptString(String encryptedText) { try { byte[] cipherBytes = encryptedText.getBytes(); cipher.init(false, key); byte[] decryptedBytes = new byte[cipher.getOutputSize(cipherBytes.length)]; int decryptedLength = cipher.processBytes(cipherBytes, 0, cipherBytes.length, decryptedBytes, 0); cipher.doFinal(decryptedBytes, decryptedLength); String decryptedString = new String(decryptedBytes); // crop accordingly int index = decryptedString.indexOf("\u0000"); if (index >= 0) { decryptedString = decryptedString.substring(0, index); } return decryptedString; } catch (DataLengthException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalArgumentException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (IllegalStateException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (InvalidCipherTextException e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } catch (Exception ex) { Logger.logToConsole(ex); } // else return "";// default bad value } private static byte[] convertLongToByteArray(long longToConvert) { return new byte[] { (byte) (longToConvert >>> 56), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 48), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 40), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 32), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 24), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 16), (byte) (longToConvert >>> 8), (byte) (longToConvert) }; } private static long convertByteArrayToLong(byte[] byteArrayToConvert) { long returnable = 0; for (int counter = 0; counter < byteArrayToConvert.length; counter++) { returnable += ((byteArrayToConvert[byteArrayToConvert.length - counter - 1] & 0xFF) << counter * 8); } if (returnable < 0) { returnable++; } return returnable; } public static long encryptLong(long plainLong) { try { String plainString = String.valueOf(plainLong); String cipherString = encryptString(plainString); byte[] cipherBytes = cipherString.getBytes(); long returnable = convertByteArrayToLong(cipherBytes); return returnable; } catch (Exception e) { Logger.logToConsole(e); } // else return Integer.MIN_VALUE;// default bad value } public static long decryptLong(long encryptedLong) { byte[] cipherBytes = convertLongToByteArray(encryptedLong); cipher.init(false, key); byte[] decryptedBytes = new byte[cipher.getOutputSize(cipherBytes.length)]; int decryptedLength = cipherBytes.length; try { cipher.doFinal(decryptedBytes, decryptedLength); } catch (DataLengthException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } catch (IllegalStateException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } catch (InvalidCipherTextException e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } catch (Exception e) { // TODO Auto-generated catch block e.printStackTrace(); } long plainLong = convertByteArrayToLong(decryptedBytes); return plainLong; } public static boolean encryptBoolean(int plainBoolean) { return false; } public static boolean decryptBoolean(int encryptedBoolean) { return false; } public static boolean testLongToByteArrayConversion() { boolean returnable = true; // fails out of the bounds of an integer, the conversion to long from byte // array does not hold, need to figure out a better solution for (long counter = -1000000; counter < 1000000; counter++) { long test = counter; byte[] bytes = convertLongToByteArray(test); long result = convertByteArrayToLong(bytes); if (result != test) { returnable = false; Logger.logToConsole("long conversion failed"); Logger.logToConsole("test = " + test + "\n result = " + result); } // regardless } // the end Logger.logToConsole("final returnable result = " + returnable); return returnable; } }

    Read the article

  • How do I catch jQuery $.getJSON (or $.ajax with datatype set to 'jsonp') error when using JSONP?

    - by Andy May
    Is it possible to catch an error when using JSONP with jQuery? I've tried both the $.getJSON and $.ajax methods but neither will catch the 404 error I'm testing. Here is what I've tried (keep in mind that these all work successfully, but I want to handle the case when it fails): jQuery.ajax({ type: "GET", url: handlerURL, dataType: "jsonp", success: function(results){ alert("Success!"); }, error: function(XMLHttpRequest, textStatus, errorThrown){ alert("Error"); } }); And also: jQuery.getJSON(handlerURL + "&callback=?", function(jsonResult){ alert("Success!"); }); I've also tried adding the $.ajaxError but that didn't work either: jQuery(document).ajaxError(function(event, request, settings){ alert("Error"); }); Thanks in advance for any replies!

    Read the article

  • How to catch FTP errors? e.g., socket.error: [Errno 10060]

    - by Johnson
    I'm using the ftplib module to upload files: files = [ a.txt , b.txt , c.txt ] s = ftplib.FTP(ftp_server , ftp_user , ftp_pw) # Connect to FTP for i in range(len(files)): f = open(files[i], 'rb') stor = 'stor ' + files[i] s.storbinary(stor, f) f.close() # close file s.quit() # close ftp How do I catch the following error? socket.error: [Errno 10060] A connection attempt failed because the connected party did not properly respond after a period of time, or established connection failed because connected host has failed to respond And what other errors are common when using the FTP module that I should also catch? Thanks for any help or pointers.

    Read the article

  • Where should I catch WM_HIBERNATE and WM_CLOSE in Windows Mobile/WinCE?

    - by afriza
    I have read about Windows Mobile's X button's behaviour, WM_HIBERNATE, and WM_CLOSE on Low Memory Situation. MSDN on WM_HIBERNATE: This message is sent to an application when system resources are running low. An application should attempt to release as many resources as possible when sent this message by unloading dialog boxes, destroying windows, or freeing up as much local storage as possible without changing the internal state. MSDN on WM_CLOSE: This message is sent as a signal that a window or an application should terminate. Where should I catch the message? in the main message pump? in every window? or only some windows? If I am using MFC, where should I catch it?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22  | Next Page >