Search Results

Search found 37765 results on 1511 pages for 'null reference exception'.

Page 2/1511 | < Previous Page | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • 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

  • Throwing exception vs checking null, for a null argument

    - by dotnetdev
    What factors dictate throwing an exception if argument is null (eg if (a is null) throw new ArgumentNullException() ), as opposed to checking the argument if it is null beforehand. I don't see why the exception should be thrown rather than checking for null in the first place? What benefit is there in the throw exception approach? This is for C#/.NET Thanks

    Read the article

  • Java - JSON Null Exception

    - by user1112111
    Hi, I'm using JSON to deserialize an input string that contains a null value for certain hashmap property. Does anyone have any clue why this exception occurs ? Is it possible that null is not accepted as a value Is this configurable somehow ? input sample: {"prop1":"val1", "prop2":123, "prop3":null} stacktrace: net.sf.json.JSONException: null object at net.sf.json.JSONObject.verifyIsNull(JSONObject.java:2856) at net.sf.json.JSONObject.isEmpty(JSONObject.java:2212) Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Difference between null==object and object==null

    - by priyank.mp
    Hi I would like to know diff between the above comparisons? I am getting null pointer exception when I check object.getItems() == null. But if I change it to null == object.getItems(), it workes fine. I did look into this http://stackoverflow.com/questions/2938476/what-is-the-difference-between-null-object-and-objectnull-closed But I didnt get satisfactory answer.

    Read the article

  • "Null" is null or not an object error in IE javascript

    - by user89691
    The following code executes fine in Firefox and Chrome, but gives an error: 'null' is null or not an object when executed in Internet Explorer. if (xmlhttp.responseXML != null) { var xmlDoc = xmlhttp.responseXML.documentElement ; var ResultNodes = xmlDoc.getElementsByTagName ("Result") ; <---- error here if (ResultNodes != null) { (I would have thought the line after the one indicated would be more likely to return the error but the debugger says the run-time error is at the line indicated) Any ideas why?

    Read the article

  • "Null" is null or not an object error in IE javascript

    - by rossmcm
    The following code executes fine in Firefox and Chrome, but gives an error: 'null' is null or not an object when executed in Internet Explorer. if (xmlhttp.responseXML != null) { var xmlDoc = xmlhttp.responseXML.documentElement ; var ResultNodes = xmlDoc.getElementsByTagName ("Result") ; <---- error here if (ResultNodes != null) { (I would have thought the line after the one indicated would be more likely to return the error but the debugger says the run-time error is at the line indicated) Any ideas why?

    Read the article

  • Null object that is not null

    - by Guillaume
    Hello, I use 2 threads to act like a produce/consumer using double queue (http://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/DoubleQueue.aspx). Sometimes in my 2nd thread, I get an object that is NULL but it should not be as I filled it in the first thread. I tried this: if(myObject.Data == null) { Console.WriteLine("Null Object") // <-- Breakpoint here } When I my break point hits, I can watch myObject.Data and indeed it's NULL, but when I hit F10 and then go to the next line (which is } ) myObject.Data is not NULL. I also added a lock on myObject before if .... to be sure that no one whould use this object. How is that possible and what can I do ?

    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

  • python generic exception handling and return arg on exception

    - by rikAtee
    I am trying to create generic exception handler - for where I can set an arg to return in case of exception, inspired from this answer. import contextlib @contextlib.contextmanager def handler(default): try: yield except Exception as e: yield default def main(): with handler(0): return 1 / 0 with handler(0): return 100 / 0 with handler(0): return 'helllo + 'cheese' But this results in RuntimeError: generator didn't stop after throw()

    Read the article

  • Throwing an exception while handling an 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

  • Returning null vs Throwing exceptions

    - by Svish
    Is in a bit of disagreement with a more experienced developer on this issue, and was wondering what you guys here think about this. Environment is Java, EJB 3, services, etc. The code I wrote calls a service to get things and to create things. Problem was that I got null pointer exceptions in places that didn't make sense. For example when I asked the service to create an object, I got null back. And when I tried to look up an object with an id I knew existed, I still got null back. Was like it was ignoring me. Spent some time trying to figure out what was wrong in my code (since I'm less experienced I usually assume I have messed up). Turns out the reason was security. If the user principal using my service didn't have the right permissions to use the service I called from my service, then that service simply returned null. The services that are here already are usually not documented either, so this is just something you have to know... somehow... So here is the thing: I mean that this is rather confusing as a developer interacting with this service. To me it would make much more sense if that service thew an exception which would tell me that hey, you don't have the proper permissions to get info about this thing or to create this new thing. I would then immediately know why my service wasn't working as expected. However, he argued that asking is not wrong. Exceptions should only be thrown when there is an error and asking for a thing is not an error. Even if you don't have permission to "see" that the thing you asked for. The things are often looked up in a GUI by users and for those users not having the right permissions, these things simply "do not exist". So, in short: Asking is not wrong, hence no exception. Get methods return null because to those users those things "doesn't exist". Create methods return null because nothing was created, since the user wasn't allowed to create anything. So, what do you guys think? Is this normal and/or good practice? I prefer exceptions as I prefer throwing and catching exceptions because I find it much easier to know what's going on. So I would for example also prefer to throw a NotFoundException if you asked for an id which didn't exist, rather than returning null. Anyways, just curious to what others think about this as I'm not the most experienced developer yet.

    Read the article

  • Catching an exception that is nested into another exception

    - by Bernhard V
    Hi, I want to catch an exception, that is nested into another exception. I'm doing it currently this way: } catch (RemoteAccessException e) { if (e != null && e.getCause() != null && e.getCause().getCause() != null) { MyException etrp = (MyException) e.getCause().getCause(); ... } else { throw new IllegalStateException("Error at calling service 'beitragskontonrVerwalten'"); } } Is there a way to do this more efficient and elegant?

    Read the article

  • Set reference = null in finally block?

    - by deamon
    A colleague of mine sets reference to null in finally blocks. I think this is nonsense. public Something getSomething() { JDBCConnection jdbc=null; try { jdbc=JDBCManager.getConnection(JDBCTypes.MYSQL); } finally { JDBCManager.free(jdbc); jdbc=null; // <-- Useful or not? } } What do you think of it?

    Read the article

  • Getting the innermost .NET Exception

    - by Rick Strahl
    Here's a trivial but quite useful function that I frequently need in dynamic execution of code: Finding the innermost exception when an exception occurs, because for many operations (for example Reflection invocations or Web Service calls) the top level errors returned can be rather generic. A good example - common with errors in Reflection making a method invocation - is this generic error: Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation In the debugger it looks like this: In this case this is an AJAX callback, which dynamically executes a method (ExecuteMethod code) which in turn calls into an Amazon Web Service using the old Amazon WSE101 Web service extensions for .NET. An error occurs in the Web Service call and the innermost exception holds the useful error information which in this case points at an invalid web.config key value related to the System.Net connection APIs. The "Exception has been thrown by the target of an invocation" error is the Reflection APIs generic error message that gets fired when you execute a method dynamically and that method fails internally. The messages basically says: "Your code blew up in my face when I tried to run it!". Which of course is not very useful to tell you what actually happened. If you drill down the InnerExceptions eventually you'll get a more detailed exception that points at the original error and code that caused the exception. In the code above the actually useful exception is two innerExceptions down. In most (but not all) cases when inner exceptions are returned, it's the innermost exception that has the information that is really useful. It's of course a fairly trivial task to do this in code, but I do it so frequently that I use a small helper method for this: /// <summary> /// Returns the innermost Exception for an object /// </summary> /// <param name="ex"></param> /// <returns></returns> public static Exception GetInnerMostException(Exception ex) { Exception currentEx = ex; while (currentEx.InnerException != null) { currentEx = currentEx.InnerException; } return currentEx; } This code just loops through all the inner exceptions (if any) and assigns them to a temporary variable until there are no more inner exceptions. The end result is that you get the innermost exception returned from the original exception. It's easy to use this code then in a try/catch handler like this (from the example above) to retrieve the more important innermost exception: object result = null; string stringResult = null; try { if (parameterList != null) // use the supplied parameter list result = helper.ExecuteMethod(methodToCall,target, parameterList.ToArray(), CallbackMethodParameterType.Json,ref attr); else // grab the info out of QueryString Values or POST buffer during parameter parsing // for optimization result = helper.ExecuteMethod(methodToCall, target, null, CallbackMethodParameterType.Json, ref attr); } catch (Exception ex) { Exception activeException = DebugUtils.GetInnerMostException(ex); WriteErrorResponse(activeException.Message, ( HttpContext.Current.IsDebuggingEnabled ? ex.StackTrace : null ) ); return; } Another function that is useful to me from time to time is one that returns all inner exceptions and the original exception as an array: /// <summary> /// Returns an array of the entire exception list in reverse order /// (innermost to outermost exception) /// </summary> /// <param name="ex">The original exception to work off</param> /// <returns>Array of Exceptions from innermost to outermost</returns> public static Exception[] GetInnerExceptions(Exception ex) {     List<Exception> exceptions = new List<Exception>();     exceptions.Add(ex);       Exception currentEx = ex;     while (currentEx.InnerException != null)     {         exceptions.Add(ex);     }       // Reverse the order to the innermost is first     exceptions.Reverse();       return exceptions.ToArray(); } This function loops through all the InnerExceptions and returns them and then reverses the order of the array returning the innermost exception first. This can be useful in certain error scenarios where exceptions stack and you need to display information from more than one of the exceptions in order to create a useful error message. This is rare but certain database exceptions bury their exception info in mutliple inner exceptions and it's easier to parse through them in an array then to manually walk the exception stack. It's also useful if you need to log errors and want to see the all of the error detail from all exceptions. None of this is rocket science, but it's useful to have some helpers that make retrieval of the critical exception info trivial. Resources DebugUtils.cs utility class in the West Wind Web Toolkit© Rick Strahl, West Wind Technologies, 2005-2011Posted in CSharp  .NET  

    Read the article

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