Search Results

Search found 36003 results on 1441 pages for 'try catch'.

Page 25/1441 | < Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >

  • Exception Handling Frequency/Log Detail

    - by Cyborgx37
    I am working on a fairly complex .NET application that interacts with another application. Many single-line statements are possible culprits for throwing an Exception and there is often nothing I can do to check the state before executing them to prevent these Exceptions. The question is, based on best practices and seasoned experience, how frequently should I lace my code with try/catch blocks? I've listed three examples below, but I'm open to any advice. I'm really hoping to get some pros/cons of various approaches. I can certainly come up with some of my own (greater log granularity for the O-C approach, better performance for the Monolithic approach), so I'm looking for experience over opinion. EDIT: I should add that this application is a batch program. The only "recovery" necessary in most cases is to log the error, clean up gracefully, and quit. So this could be seen to be as much a question of log granularity as exception handling. In my mind's eye I can imagine good reasons for both, so I'm looking for some general advice to help me find an appropriate balance. Monolitich Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } public static void Step2(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } public static void Step3(){ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } } Delegated Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Obsessive-Compulsive Approach class Program{ public static void Main(){ try{ Step1(); Step2(); Step3(); } finally { CleanUp(); } } public static void Step1(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous1(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous2(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step2(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous3(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous4(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } public static void Step3(){ try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous5(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } try{ ExternalApp.Dangerous6(); } catch (Exception e) { Log(e); throw; } } } Other approaches welcomed and encouraged. Above are examples only.

    Read the article

  • In Javascript, what's better than try/catch for exiting an outer scope?

    - by gruseom
    In Javascript, I sometimes want to return a value from a scope that isn't the current function. It might be a block of code within the function, or it might be an enclosing function as in the following example, which uses a local function to recursively search for something. As soon as it finds a solution, the search is done and the whole thing should just return. Unfortunately, I can't think of a simpler way to do this than by hacking try/catch for the purpose: function solve(searchSpace) { var search = function (stuff) { solution = isItSolved(stuff); if (solution) { throw solution; } else { search(narrowThisWay(stuff)); search(narrowThatWay(stuff)); }; }; try { return search(searchSpace); } catch (solution) { return solution; }; }; I realize one could assign the solution to a local variable and then check it before making another recursive call, but my question is specifically about transfer of control. Is there a better way than the above? Perhaps involving label/break?

    Read the article

  • How to catch this low level MySQL (?) error in PHP/Magento

    - by andnil
    When I'm executing the following statement in Magento with a really large $sku, the execution terminates without any errors thrown what so ever. There are no errors in either Magento's, Apache's or PHP's error logs. Mage::getModel('catalog/product')-loadByAttribute('sku', $sku); Question: How do I catch the error? I've tried to set custom error handlers, and for testing purposes I've also managed to trigger error situations where each of the error handler functions are invoked. But when running the previously mentioned Magento code with a large $sku, none of the error handling functions are executed. error_reporting( -1 ); set_error_handler( array( 'Error', 'captureNormal' ) ); set_exception_handler( array( 'Error', 'captureException' ) ); register_shutdown_function( array( 'Error', 'captureShutdown' ) ); For completeness, this is the $sku I'm passing to loadByAttribute(). (The sku is invalid, but that is not the issue) 1- 9685 0102046|1- 9685 1212100|1- 9685 1212092|1- 9685 1212096|1- 9685 1102100|1- 9685 1102108|1- 9685 1102112|1- 9685 1102092|1- 9685 0102048|1- 9685 0102054|1- 9685 0102056|1- 9685 0102058|1- 9685 1212104|1- 9685 1212108|1- 9685 0212058|1- 9685 0104050|1- 9685 0212050|1- 9685 0212056|1- 9685 0212044|1- 9685 0212048|1- 9685 0212052|1- 9685 0212054|1- 9685 1102104|1- 9685 1102124 Any insight into this matter is much appreciated! Update: Upon further investigation, this is the exact point in the code where execution terminates. when the foreach is executed I guess Magento goes into MySQL world and starts loading up data from the database. \Mage\Catalog\Model\Abstract.php public function loadByAttribute($attribute, $value, $additionalAttributes = '*') { $collection = $this->getResourceCollection() ->addAttributeToSelect($additionalAttributes) ->addAttributeToFilter($attribute, $value) ->setPage(1,1); foreach ($collection as $object) { // <--------------- HERE return $object; } return false; } Note, I'm ONLY interested in finding out how to properly CATCH these kinds of errors, not "fix" the logic. This is so that I can present a proper error message to the user. The example above with the malformed sku is contrived and I have no desire to make my Magento app work with those erroneous skus.

    Read the article

  • How to create a route that catch all pdf file?

    - by VinnyG
    I want to have my pdf files sent this way to my users : public ActionResult GetPDF( string filename ) { return File( filename, "application/pdf", Server.HtmlEncode( filename ) ); } But I don't know how to create a route that will catch all the different pdf file in my site? Thanks a lot for the help!

    Read the article

  • Java: how to access assignments in try-catch -loop?

    - by HH
    $ javac TestInit2.java TestInit2.java:13: variable unknown might not have been initialized System.out.println(unknown); ^ 1 error Code import java.util.*; import java.io.*; public class TestInit2 { public static void main(String[] args){ String unknown; try{ unknown="cannot see me, why?"; }catch(Exception e){ e.printStackTrace(); } System.out.println(unknown); } }

    Read the article

  • How to catch 'exceptions' for out of order execution in Workflow Foundation 4?

    - by Alex Key
    Hi, I am attempting to model a worklfow using a "WCF Workflow Service" in .net / vs 2010 that needs to handle out of order execution gracefully (but not allow it - if thath makes sense!?) For example I have 2 receive activities one called Initialize and the other called GetValue inside a FlowChart. In most cases Initialize should be called first and GetValue after (as modled in the flow chart). However if GetValue is executed before Initialize I do not want to return an "out of order" exception (although when I look at the WCF test client, I can't actually see an exception). But instead a custom exception saying something like "you must initialize first". In theory I could model this with lots of parallel activities and conditions to check if Initialized / Running / Terminated etc. But the business process I am modelling if very very similar to a state machine... except it must handle people executing things in the wrong order. Ideally I would like to catch the "out of order" exception (thought I don't think it's really an exception as such), check the 'exception' to see which function was attempted to run and then handle it. I have done some research around enabling AllowBufferedReceive. However I don't want to be able to execute out of order (I don't think), but instead give a detailed response if it does happen. I've looked at the new beta state machine template for WF 4 - but i'm not sure if it does what i'm after? I'm not sure if I have the wrong end of the stick, so any help would be greatly appreciated. [EDIT] To help clarify... Sorry it's a tricky one to explain. The standard I am trying to implement (the e-learning standard SCORM RTE) is structured like a state machine i.e. certain functions can only be executed in certain states. However the standard specifies that if the calling clients tries to execute a function that it is not meant to, then a warning should be issued... for example "you cannot use GetValue(), because you have not yet Initialized". Ideally I'd like to structure the workflow as the theoretical state machine and not need to have to use multiple if/else's to handle all the scenarios where something could be executed out-of-order. I'd like to catch a out-of-order exception (but I don't think there is such an exception - as it's not in the debugger) and rethrow it.

    Read the article

  • Try catch finally blocks.. do i still need them?

    - by Phil
    I am handling errors via my global.asax in this method: Dim CurrentException As Exception CurrentException = Server.GetLastError() Dim LogFilePath As String = Server.MapPath("~/Error/" & DateTime.Now.ToString("dd-MM-yy.HH.mm") & ".txt") Dim sw As System.IO.StreamWriter = New System.IO.StreamWriter(LogFilePath) sw.WriteLine(DateTime.Now.ToString) sw.WriteLine(CurrentException.ToString()) sw.Close() In my code I currently have no other error handling. Should I still insert try, catch, finally blocks? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • How should I use try...except while defining a function?

    - by SpawnCxy
    Hi all, I find I've been confused by the problem that when I needn't to use try..except.For last few days it was used in almost every function I defined which I think maybe a bad practice.For example: class mongodb(object): def getRecords(self,tname,conditions=''): try: col = eval("self.db.%s" %tname) recs = col.find(condition) return recs except Exception,e: #here make some error log with e.message What I thought is ,exceptions may be raised everywhere and I have to use try to get them. And my question is,is it a good practice to use it everywhere when defining functions?If not are there any principles for it?Help would be appreciated! Regards

    Read the article

  • Why does the compiler complain "while expected" when I try to add more code?

    - by user1893578
    Write a program with a word containing @ character as an input. If the word doesn't contain @, it should prompt the user for a word with @. Once a word with @ is read, it should output the word then terminate. This is what I have done so far: public class find { public static void main(String[] args) { System.out.println(" Please enter a word with @ "); Scanner scan = new Scanner(System.in); String bad = "@"; String word = scan.next(); do if (!word.contains(bad)) System.out.println(" Please try again "); else System.out.println(" " + word); while (!word.contains(bad)); } } I can get it to terminate after a word containing "@" is given as input, but if I try to add a Scanner to the line after "please try again", it says while expected.

    Read the article

  • When I try to setup my SVN Repo in XCode it gives me a strange error?

    - by user8460
    I wanted to use the subversion features of XCode with a new repository that I just created on my (mt) Grid Service hosting.. and when I try to set it up in XCode it gives me this error: Error: 210002 (Network connection closed unexpectedly) Description: Connection closed unexpectedly I downloaded a free trial of the http://versionsapp.com Versions App and put it all in, and it works like a charm... any reason why this could be happening

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32  | Next Page >