Search Results

Search found 17554 results on 703 pages for 'runtime exception'.

Page 24/703 | < Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >

  • Fix the Exception “SetConfigurationSettingPublisher needs to be called before FromConfigurationSetting can be used”

    - by ybbest
    When you are getting the following exception in your Azure development , you need to run the CloudStorageAccount.SetConfigurationSettingPublisher before retriving any settings information. To fix the exception, you need to add the following code before retrieving any settings information. CloudStorageAccount.SetConfigurationSettingPublisher((configName, configSetter) => { string connectionString; if (RoleEnvironment.IsAvailable) { connectionString = RoleEnvironment.GetConfigurationSettingValue(configName); } else { connectionString = ConfigurationManager.AppSettings[configName]; } configSetter(connectionString); });

    Read the article

  • "no such file to load -- treetop/runtime" running "rake jobs:work"

    - by Ryan Marshall
    when i try and run the "rails server" or "rake jobs:work" i get the error: "no such file to load -- treetop/runtime" full trace: macbook-pro-2:domain ryan$ rake jobs:work --trace(in /Applications/htdocs/domain) rake aborted! no such file to load -- treetop/runtime /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/lib/mail.rb:68:in require' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/lib/mail.rb:68 /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/lib/mail.rb:61:ineach' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/mail-2.2.14/lib/mail.rb:61 /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/delayed_job-2.1.2/lib/delayed/performable_mailer.rb:1:in require' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/delayed_job-2.1.2/lib/delayed/performable_mailer.rb:1 /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/delayed_job-2.1.2/lib/delayed_job.rb:5:inrequire' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/delayed_job-2.1.2/lib/delayed_job.rb:5 /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/bundler-1.0.7/lib/bundler/runtime.rb:64:in require' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/bundler-1.0.7/lib/bundler/runtime.rb:64:inrequire' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/bundler-1.0.7/lib/bundler/runtime.rb:62:in each' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/bundler-1.0.7/lib/bundler/runtime.rb:62:inrequire' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/bundler-1.0.7/lib/bundler/runtime.rb:51:in each' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/bundler-1.0.7/lib/bundler/runtime.rb:51:inrequire' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/bundler-1.0.7/lib/bundler.rb:112:in require' /ApApplications/htdocs/domain/config/application.rb:7 /opt/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:ingem_original_require' /opt/local/lib/ruby/site_ruby/1.8/rubygems/custom_require.rb:31:in require' /Applications/htdocs/domain/Rakefile:4 /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2383:inload' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2383:in raw_load_rakefile' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2017:inload_rakefile' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2068:in standard_exception_handling' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2016:inload_rakefile' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2000:in run' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:2068:instandard_exception_handling' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/lib/rake.rb:1998:in run' /opt/local/lib/ruby/gems/1.8/gems/rake-0.8.7/bin/rake:31 /opt/local/bin/rake:19:inload' /opt/local/bin/rake:19 in my Gemfile i have: "gem 'delayed_job'"

    Read the article

  • After calling a COM-dll component, C# exceptions are not caught by the debugger

    - by shlomil
    I'm using a COM dll provided to me by 3rd-party software company (I don't have the source code). I do know for sure they used Java to implement it because their objects contain property names like 'JvmVersion'. After I instantiated an object introduced by the provided COM dll, all exceptions in my C# program cannot be caught by the VS debugger and every time an exception occurs I get the default Windows Debugger Selection dialog (And that's while executing my program in debug mode under a full VisualStudio debugging environment). To illustrate: throw new Exception("exception 1"); m_moo = new moo(); // Component taken from the COM-dll throw new Exception("exception 2"); Exception 1 will be caught by VS and show the "yellow exception window". Exception 2 will open a dialog titled "Visual Studio Just-In-Time Debugger" containing the text "An unhandled win32 exception occurred in myfile.vshost.exe[1348]." followed by a list of the existing VS instances on my system to select from. I guess the instantiation of "moo" object overrides C#'s exception handler or something like that. Am I correct and is there a way to preserve C#'s exception handler?

    Read the article

  • #AJIReport 16 | Jason Bock on Windows Runtime and Metaprogramming

    - by Jeff Julian
    This episode we sit down with Jason Bock to talk about Windows Runtime and his upcoming book on Metaprogramming. Jason has been a consultant at Magenic for the past 11 years. In this show, Jason walks us through how to get started with Windows RT and talks about what the experience is like deploying to the Windows Store. We get into the new frontier of device development and the restrictions that are in place to protect the users and other applications. Towards the end of the show we start talking about Jason's book on Metaprogramming that he is co-authoring with Kevin Hazard. Listen to the Show Site: http://www.jasonbock.net/ Book: Metaprogramming in .NET Twitter: @JasonBock

    Read the article

  • Monitoring Events in your BPEL Runtime - RSS Feeds?

    - by Ramkumar Menon
    @10g - It had been a while since I'd tried something different. so here's what I did this week!Whenever our Developers deployed processes to the BPEL runtime, or perhaps when a process gets turned off due to connectivity issues, or maybe someone retired a process, I needed to know. So here's what I did. Step 1: Downloaded Quartz libraries and went through the documentation to understand what it takes to schedule a recurring job. Step 2: Cranked out two components using Oracle JDeveloper. [Within a new Web Project] a) A simple Java Class named FeedUpdater that extends org.quartz.Job. All this class does is to connect to your BPEL Runtime [via opmn:ormi] and fetch all events that occured in the last "n" minutes. events? - If it doesn't ring a bell - its right there on the BPEL Console. If you click on "Administration > Process Log" - what you see are events.The API to retrieve the events is //get the locator reference for the domain you are interested in.Locator l = .... //Predicate to retrieve events for last "n" minutesWhereCondition wc = new WhereCondition(...) //get all those events you needed.BPELProcessEvent[] events = l.listProcessEvents(wc); After you get all these events, write out these into an RSS Feed XML structure and stream it into a file that resides either in your Apache htdocs, or wherever it can be accessed via HTTP.You can read all about RSS 2.0 here. At a high level, here is how it looks like. <?xml version = '1.0' encoding = 'UTF-8'?><rss version="2.0">  <channel>    <title>Live Updates from the Development Environment</title>    <link>http://soadev.myserver.com/feeds/</link>    <description>Live Updates from the Development Environment</description>    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 19 Nov 2010 01:03:00 PST</lastBuildDate>    <language>en-us</language>    <ttl>1</ttl>    <item>      <guid>1290213724692</guid>      <title>Process compiled</title>      <link>http://soadev.myserver.com/BPELConsole/mdm_product/administration.jsp?mode=processLog&amp;processName=&amp;dn=all&amp;eventType=all&amp;eventDate=600&amp;Filter=++Filter++</link>      <pubDate>Fri Nov 19 00:00:37 PST 2010</pubDate>      <description>SendPurchaseOrderRequestService: 3.0 Time : Fri Nov 19 00:00:37                   PST 2010</description>    </item>   ...... </channel> </rss> For writing ut XML content, read through Oracle XML Parser APIs - [search around for oracle.xml.parser.v2] b) Now that my "Job" was done, my job was half done. Next, I wrote up a simple Scheduler Servlet that schedules the above "Job" class to be executed ever "n" minutes. It is very straight forward. Here is the primary section of the code.           try {        Scheduler sched = StdSchedulerFactory.getDefaultScheduler();         //get n and make a trigger that executes every "n" seconds        Trigger trigger = TriggerUtils.makeSecondlyTrigger(n);        trigger.setName("feedTrigger" + System.currentTimeMillis());        trigger.setGroup("feedGroup");                JobDetail job = new JobDetail("SOA_Feed" + System.currentTimeMillis(), "feedGroup", FeedUpdater.class);        sched.scheduleJob(job,trigger);         }catch(Exception ex) {            ex.printStackTrace();            throw new ServletException(ex.getMessage());        } Look up the Quartz API and documentation. It will make this look much simpler.   Now that both components were ready, I packaged the Application into a war file and deployed it onto my Application Server. When the servlet initialized, the "n" second schedule was set/initialized. From then on, the servlet kept populating the RSS Feed file. I just ensured that my "Job" code keeps only 30 latest events within it, so that the feed file is small and under control. [a few kbs]   Next I opened up the feed xml on my browser - It requested a subscription - and Here I was - watching new deployments/life cycle events all popping up on my browser toolbar every 5 (actually n)  minutes!   Well, you could do it on a browser/reader of your choice - or perhaps read them like you read an email on your thunderbird!.      

    Read the article

  • How to make creating viewmodels at runtime less painful

    - by Mr Happy
    I apologize for the long question, it reads a bit as a rant, but I promise it's not! I've summarized my question(s) below In the MVC world, things are straightforward. The Model has state, the View shows the Model, and the Controller does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a controller has no state. To do stuff the Controller has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a controller you care about supplying those dependencies, nothing else. When you execute an action (method on Controller), you use those dependencies to retrieve or update the Model or calling some other domain service. If there's any context, say like some user wants to see the details of a particular item, you pass the Id of that item as parameter to the Action. Nowhere in the Controller is there any reference to any state. So far so good. Enter MVVM. I love WPF, I love data binding. I love frameworks that make data binding to ViewModels even easier (using Caliburn Micro a.t.m.). I feel things are less straightforward in this world though. Let's do the exercise again: the Model has state, the View shows the ViewModel, and the ViewModel does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a ViewModel does have state! (to clarify; maybe it delegates all the properties to one or more Models, but that means it must have a reference to the model one way or another, which is state in itself) To do stuff the ViewModel has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a ViewModel you care about supplying those dependencies, but also the state. And this, ladies and gentlemen, annoys me to no end. Whenever you need to instantiate a ProductDetailsViewModel from the ProductSearchViewModel (from which you called the ProductSearchWebService which in turn returned IEnumerable<ProductDTO>, everybody still with me?), you can do one of these things: call new ProductDetailsViewModel(productDTO, _shoppingCartWebService /* dependcy */);, this is bad, imagine 3 more dependencies, this means the ProductSearchViewModel needs to take on those dependencies as well. Also changing the constructor is painful. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelFactory.Create().Initialize(productDTO);, the factory is just a Func, they are easily generated by most IoC frameworks. I think this is bad because Init methods are a leaky abstraction. You also can't use the readonly keyword for fields that are set in the Init method. I'm sure there are a few more reasons. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelAbstractFactory.Create(productDTO); So... this is the pattern (abstract factory) that is usually recommended for this type of problem. I though it was genius since it satisfies my craving for static typing, until I actually started using it. The amount of boilerplate code is I think too much (you know, apart from the ridiculous variable names I get use). For each ViewModel that needs runtime parameters you'll get two extra files (factory interface and implementation), and you need to type the non-runtime dependencies like 4 extra times. And each time the dependencies change, you get to change it in the factory as well. It feels like I don't even use a DI container anymore. (I think Castle Windsor has some kind of solution for this [with it's own drawbacks, correct me if I'm wrong]). do something with anonymous types or dictionary. I like my static typing. So, yeah. Mixing state and behavior in this way creates a problem which don't exist at all in MVC. And I feel like there currently isn't a really adequate solution for this problem. Now I'd like to observe some things: People actually use MVVM. So they either don't care about all of the above, or they have some brilliant other solution. I haven't found an in-depth example of MVVM with WPF. For example, the NDDD-sample project immensely helped me understand some DDD concepts. I'd really like it if someone could point me in the direction of something similar for MVVM/WPF. Maybe I'm doing MVVM all wrong and I should turn my design upside down. Maybe I shouldn't have this problem at all. Well I know other people have asked the same question so I think I'm not the only one. To summarize Am I correct to conclude that having the ViewModel being an integration point for both state and behavior is the reason for some difficulties with the MVVM pattern as a whole? Is using the abstract factory pattern the only/best way to instantiate a ViewModel in a statically typed way? Is there something like an in depth reference implementation available? Is having a lot of ViewModels with both state/behavior a design smell?

    Read the article

  • ASP.NET Conditionally Change ButtonField text at runTime

    - by Rodney Vinyard
    ASP.NET Conditionally Change ButtonField text at runTime   <asp:ButtonField CommandName="Edit" HeaderText="" Text="Edit" ButtonType="Link" />       protected void gvRequests_RowDataBound(object sender, GridViewRowEventArgs e)     {         if (e.Row.RowType == DataControlRowType.DataRow)         {             //----------------------------------------------------             // If status = "Saved", change buttonField.LinkButton.Text to "Copy"             //----------------------------------------------------             if (e.Row.Cells[(int)gCol.Status].Text == "Saved")             {                 //----------------------------------------------------                 // no !                 //----------------------------------------------------                 //string x = e.Row.Cells[(int)gCol.EditLink].Text;                 //e.Row.Cells[(int)gCol.EditLink].Text = "Copy";                   //----------------------------------------------------                 // yes !                 //----------------------------------------------------                 LinkButton linkButton = (LinkButton)e.Row.Cells[(int)gCol.EditLink].Controls[0];                 linkButton.Text = "Copy";             }         }     }

    Read the article

  • MVVM - how to make creating viewmodels at runtime less painfull

    - by Mr Happy
    I apologize for the long question, it reads a bit as a rant, but I promise it's not! I've summarized my question(s) below In the MVC world, things are straightforward. The Model has state, the View shows the Model, and the Controller does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a controller has no state. To do stuff the Controller has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a controller you care about supplying those dependencies, nothing else. When you execute an action (method on Controller), you use those dependencies to retrieve or update the Model or calling some other domain service. If there's any context, say like some user wants to see the details of a particular item, you pass the Id of that item as parameter to the Action. Nowhere in the Controller is there any reference to any state. So far so good. Enter MVVM. I love WPF, I love data binding. I love frameworks that make data binding to ViewModels even easier (using Caliburn Micro a.t.m.). I feel things are less straightforward in this world though. Let's do the exercise again: the Model has state, the View shows the ViewModel, and the ViewModel does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a ViewModel does have state! (to clarify; maybe it delegates all the properties to one or more Models, but that means it must have a reference to the model one way or another, which is state in itself) To do stuff the ViewModel has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a ViewModel you care about supplying those dependencies, but also the state. And this, ladies and gentlemen, annoys me to no end. Whenever you need to instantiate a ProductDetailsViewModel from the ProductSearchViewModel (from which you called the ProductSearchWebService which in turn returned IEnumerable<ProductDTO>, everybody still with me?), you can do one of these things: call new ProductDetailsViewModel(productDTO, _shoppingCartWebService /* dependcy */);, this is bad, imagine 3 more dependencies, this means the ProductSearchViewModel needs to take on those dependencies as well. Also changing the constructor is painfull. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelFactory.Create().Initialize(productDTO);, the factory is just a Func, they are easily generated by most IoC frameworks. I think this is bad because Init methods are a leaky abstraction. You also can't use the readonly keyword for fields that are set in the Init method. I'm sure there are a few more reasons. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelAbstractFactory.Create(productDTO); So... this is the pattern (abstract factory) that is usually recommended for this type of problem. I though it was genious since it satisfies my craving for static typing, until I actually started using it. The amount of boilerplate code is I think too much (you know, apart from the ridiculous variable names I get use). For each ViewModel that needs runtime parameters you'll get two extra files (factory interface and implementation), and you need to type the non-runtime dependencies like 4 extra times. And each time the dependencies change, you get to change it in the factory as well. It feels like I don't even use an DI container anymore. (I think Castle Windsor has some kind of solution for this [with it's own drawbacks, correct me if I'm wrong]). do something with anonymous types or dictionary. I like my static typing. So, yeah. Mixing state and behavior in this way creates a problem which don't exist at all in MVC. And I feel like there currently isn't a really adequate solution for this problem. Now I'd like to observe some things: People actually use MVVM. So they either don't care about all of the above, or they have some brilliant other solution. I haven't found an indepth example of MVVM with WPF. For example, the NDDD-sample project immensely helped me understand some DDD concepts. I'd really like it if someone could point me in the direction of something similar for MVVM/WPF. Maybe I'm doing MVVM all wrong and I should turn my design upside down. Maybe I shouldn't have this problem at all. Well I know other people have asked the same question so I think I'm not the only one. To summarize Am I correct to conclude that having the ViewModel being an integration point for both state and behavior is the reason for some difficulties with the MVVM pattern as a whole? Is using the abstract factory pattern the only/best way to instantiate a ViewModel in a statically typed way? Is there something like an in depth reference implementation available? Is having a lot of ViewModels with both state/behavior a design smell?

    Read the article

  • XNA: Runtime differences in ClickOnce install versus development version

    - by Sean Colombo
    I have a game written in XNA, and I use ClickOnce installers to distribute the game to testers. I keep once computer as a test machine which does NOT have development environments installed, so that I can test the installed version. We've found a reproducible bug in our game, but the bug ONLY occurs on the non-development machines that use the ClickOnce installer. The bug is related to some of our code for moving around 3D objects and is not tied to Networking or GamerServices. Are there known differences in the ClickOnce runtime and the version on dev? Are there any best-practices for debugging something like this?

    Read the article

  • How to make creating viewmodels at runtime less painfull

    - by Mr Happy
    I apologize for the long question, it reads a bit as a rant, but I promise it's not! I've summarized my question(s) below In the MVC world, things are straightforward. The Model has state, the View shows the Model, and the Controller does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a controller has no state. To do stuff the Controller has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a controller you care about supplying those dependencies, nothing else. When you execute an action (method on Controller), you use those dependencies to retrieve or update the Model or calling some other domain service. If there's any context, say like some user wants to see the details of a particular item, you pass the Id of that item as parameter to the Action. Nowhere in the Controller is there any reference to any state. So far so good. Enter MVVM. I love WPF, I love data binding. I love frameworks that make data binding to ViewModels even easier (using Caliburn Micro a.t.m.). I feel things are less straightforward in this world though. Let's do the exercise again: the Model has state, the View shows the ViewModel, and the ViewModel does stuff to/with the Model (basically), a ViewModel does have state! (to clarify; maybe it delegates all the properties to one or more Models, but that means it must have a reference to the model one way or another, which is state in itself) To do stuff the ViewModel has some dependencies on web services, repository, the lot. When you instantiate a ViewModel you care about supplying those dependencies, but also the state. And this, ladies and gentlemen, annoys me to no end. Whenever you need to instantiate a ProductDetailsViewModel from the ProductSearchViewModel (from which you called the ProductSearchWebService which in turn returned IEnumerable<ProductDTO>, everybody still with me?), you can do one of these things: call new ProductDetailsViewModel(productDTO, _shoppingCartWebService /* dependcy */);, this is bad, imagine 3 more dependencies, this means the ProductSearchViewModel needs to take on those dependencies as well. Also changing the constructor is painfull. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelFactory.Create().Initialize(productDTO);, the factory is just a Func, they are easily generated by most IoC frameworks. I think this is bad because Init methods are a leaky abstraction. You also can't use the readonly keyword for fields that are set in the Init method. I'm sure there are a few more reasons. call _myInjectedProductDetailsViewModelAbstractFactory.Create(productDTO); So... this is the pattern (abstract factory) that is usually recommended for this type of problem. I though it was genious since it satisfies my craving for static typing, until I actually started using it. The amount of boilerplate code is I think too much (you know, apart from the ridiculous variable names I get use). For each ViewModel that needs runtime parameters you'll get two extra files (factory interface and implementation), and you need to type the non-runtime dependencies like 4 extra times. And each time the dependencies change, you get to change it in the factory as well. It feels like I don't even use an DI container anymore. (I think Castle Windsor has some kind of solution for this [with it's own drawbacks, correct me if I'm wrong]). do something with anonymous types or dictionary. I like my static typing. So, yeah. Mixing state and behavior in this way creates a problem which don't exist at all in MVC. And I feel like there currently isn't a really adequate solution for this problem. Now I'd like to observe some things: People actually use MVVM. So they either don't care about all of the above, or they have some brilliant other solution. I haven't found an indepth example of MVVM with WPF. For example, the NDDD-sample project immensely helped me understand some DDD concepts. I'd really like it if someone could point me in the direction of something similar for MVVM/WPF. Maybe I'm doing MVVM all wrong and I should turn my design upside down. Maybe I shouldn't have this problem at all. Well I know other people have asked the same question so I think I'm not the only one. To summarize Am I correct to conclude that having the ViewModel being an integration point for both state and behavior is the reason for some difficulties with the MVVM pattern as a whole? Is using the abstract factory pattern the only/best way to instantiate a ViewModel in a statically typed way? Is there something like an in depth reference implementation available? Is having a lot of ViewModels with both state/behavior a design smell?

    Read the article

  • specifying an object type at runtime

    - by lapin
    I've written a Vbo template class to work with opengl. I'd like to set the type from a config file at runtime. e.g. <vbo type="bump_vt" ... /> Vbo* pVbo = new Vbo(bump_vt, ...); Is there some way I can do this without a large if else block e.g. if( sType.compareTo("bump_vt") == 0 ) Vbo* pVbo = new Vbo(bump_vt, ...); else if ... I'm writing for multiple platforms in c++. thanks

    Read the article

  • Adobe annonce la disponibilité du runtime AIR 2, une solution multiplateforme encore plus performant

    Mise à jour du 14.06.2010 par Katleen Adobe annonce la disponibilité du runtime AIR 2, une solution multiplateforme encore plus performante Adobe vient de présenter la version 2 de son moteur AIR, qui permet à des applications écrites avec différents langages (HTML, CSS, JavaScript, ActionScript d'Adobe ; une version récente du webkit offre le support de certaines parties des CSS3 et de certaines fonctions HTML5) de fonctionner à l'identique sur Mac OS X, Windows et Linux (et même Android). Une solution multiplateforme dont le moteur JavaScript serait deux fois plus rapide, et qui réduirait de 30% la consommation mémoire des applications AIR s'appuyant sur le framework flex et tournant avec cette ver...

    Read the article

  • Junit (3.8.1) testing that an exception is thrown (works in unit test, fails when added to a testSui

    - by Mike Cargal
    I'm trying to test that I'm throwing an exception when appropriate. In my test class I have a method similar to the following: public void testParseException() { try { ClientEntitySingleton.getInstance(); fail("should have thrown exception."); } catch (RuntimeException re) { assertEquals( "<exception message>", re.getMessage()); } } This works fine (green bar) whenever I run that single unitTest class. However, when I add that test to a testSuite, I get a red bar Unit test failure reported on the exception. One more thing... it works in the testSuite, if it's the first test in the suite. Actually, I'm doing two of these tests and just figured out that if I make them the first two tests in the suite, all is good, but I get this failure if a "regular" test precedes it. So I have a work-around, but no real answer. Any ideas? Heres'a stack trace of the "failure" java.lang.RuntimeException: ProcEntity client dn="Xxxxxx/Xxxx/XXX" is defined multiple times. at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.addClientEntity(ClientEntitySingleton.java:247) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.startElement(ClientEntitySingleton.java:264) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.startElement(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanStartElement(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl$FragmentContentDispatcher.dispatch(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.impl.XMLDocumentFragmentScannerImpl.scanDocument(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XML11Configuration.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.XMLParser.parse(Unknown Source) at org.apache.xerces.parsers.AbstractSAXParser.parse(Unknown Source) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.parse(ClientEntitySingleton.java:216) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.reload(ClientEntitySingleton.java:303) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.ClientEntitySingleton.setInputSourceProvider(ClientEntitySingleton.java:88) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.test.TestClientBase.setUp(TestClientBase.java:17) at com.someco.someprod.clientEntityManagement.test.TestClientEntityDup.setUp(TestClientEntityDup.java:8) at junit.framework.TestCase.runBare(TestCase.java:125) at junit.framework.TestResult$1.protect(TestResult.java:106) at junit.framework.TestResult.runProtected(TestResult.java:124) at junit.framework.TestResult.run(TestResult.java:109) at junit.framework.TestCase.run(TestCase.java:118) at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208) at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203) at junit.framework.TestSuite.runTest(TestSuite.java:208) at junit.framework.TestSuite.run(TestSuite.java:203) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.junit3.JUnit3TestReference.run(JUnit3TestReference.java:128) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.TestExecution.run(TestExecution.java:38) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:460) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.runTests(RemoteTestRunner.java:673) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.run(RemoteTestRunner.java:386) at org.eclipse.jdt.internal.junit.runner.RemoteTestRunner.main(RemoteTestRunner.java:196)

    Read the article

  • When would you prefer to declare an exception rather than handling it in Java?

    - by Epitaph
    I know we can declare the exception for our method if we want it to be handled by the calling method. This will even allow us to do stuff like write to the OutputStream without wrapping the code in try/catch block if the enclosing method throws IOException. My question is: Can anyone provide an instance where this is usually done where you'd like the super class to handle the exception instead of the current method?

    Read the article

  • What exception is thrown if a web service i'm using Times Out?

    - by BT
    I'm calling a .NET web service within my existing .NET webservice, i would like to know what exception is thrown from the web method if timeout happens, i have set the web service timeout to some lower value then the default 90 sec. and want to add business logic if time out happens. Is this the exception i should be looking at? System.Net.WebException

    Read the article

  • How to identify what function call raise an exception in Python?

    - by boos
    i need to identify who raise an exception to handle better str error, is there a way ? look at my example: try: os.mkdir('/valid_created_dir') os.listdir('/invalid_path') except OSError, msg: # here i want i way to identify who raise the exception if is_mkdir_who_raise_an_exception: do some things if is_listdir_who_raise_an_exception: do other things .. how i can handle this, in python ?

    Read the article

  • When i am replacing or inserting an object into nsmutable array, I am getting Exception.

    - by Madan Mohan
    Hi, While replacing or inserting into an nsmutable array, I am getting exception as Terminating app due to uncaught exception 'NSInternalInconsistencyException', reason: '* -[NSCFArray replaceObjectAtIndex:withObject:]: mutating method sent to immutable object' [list replaceObjectAtIndex:indexRow withObject:editcontacts]; //or [list insertObject:editcontacts atIndex:indexRow]; please help me. Madan, Thank You.

    Read the article

  • Is it possible to call the main(String[] args) after catching an exception?

    - by Jason
    I'm working on a Serpinski triangle program that asks the user for the levels of triangles to draw. In the interests of idiot-proofing my program, I put this in: Scanner input= new Scanner(System.in); System.out.println(msg); try { level= input.nextInt(); } catch (Exception e) { System.out.print(warning); //restart main method } Is it possible, if the user punches in a letter or symbol, to restart the main method after the exception has been caught?

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31  | Next Page >