Search Results

Search found 38690 results on 1548 pages for 'try catch throw'.

Page 9/1548 | < Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >

  • SQL Server catch error from extended stored procedure

    - by haxelit
    Hello I have an extended stored procedure that sends an error message. srv_sendmsg(pSrvProc, SRV_MSG_ERROR, errorNum, SRV_FATAL_SERVER, 1, NULL, 0, (DBUSMALLINT) __LINE__, buff, SRV_NULLTERM); I've set the severity to SVR_FATAL_SERVER just as a test to see if I can cause the message to throw an exception in the sql. In my SQL i'm doing: BEGIN TRY EXEC dbo.xp_somethingCool SET @Error = @@ERROR END TRY BEGIN CATCH PRINT 'AN Error occoured!' SELECT ERROR_NUMBER() AS ErrorNumber ,ERROR_MESSAGE() AS ErrorMessage; END CATCH I would think that when my xp sends the error message the tsql would catch the error and select the error_number and error_message. Instead what ends up happening is that the xp sends the message and the T-SQL continues on its way like nothing happened. The @@Error variable doesn't get set either. So I was wondering if there was any trick to getting SQL to catch an error from an XP ? Thanks, Raul

    Read the article

  • JavaScript try/catch: errors or exceptions?

    - by Josh
    OK. I may be splitting hairs here, but my code isn't consistent and I'd like to make it so. But before I do, I want to make sure I'm going the right way. In practice this doesn't matter, but this has been bothering me for a while so I figured I'd ask my peers... Every time I use a try... catch statement, in the catch block I always log a message to my internal console. However my log messages are not consistent. They either look like: catch(err) { DFTools.console.log("someMethod caught an error: ",err.message); ... or: catch(ex) { DFTools.console.log("someMethod caught an exception: ",ex.message); ... Obviously the code functions properly either way but it's starting to bother me that I sometimes refer to "errors" and sometimes to "exceptions". Like I said, maybe I'm splitting hairs but which is the proper terminology? "Exception", or "Error"?

    Read the article

  • How to catch exception on RollBack

    - by Jagd
    What is the best way to implement error handling for a SqlTransaction RollBack that already exists within a catch clause? My code is roughly like this: using (SqlConnection objSqlConn = new SqlConnection(connStr)) { objSqlConn.Open(); using (SqlTransaction objSqlTrans = objSqlConn.BeginTransaction()) { try { // code // more code // and more code } catch (Exception ex) { // What happens if RollBack() has an exception? objSqlTrans.Rollback(); throw ex; } } } I believe that my application had an exception in the try block, which in turn was caught in the catch block and then the RollBack was attempted. However, the error that I'm seeing says something about a SqlTransaction.ZombieCheck(), which is making me wonder if the RollBack() itself threw an exception as well. So, do I need to implement some type of error handling at the RollBack()? How do I do that and manage to hold on to the exception that put the execution into the catch block in the first place?

    Read the article

  • Confused by this PHP Exception try..catch nesting

    - by Domenic
    Hello. I'm confused by the following code: class MyException extends Exception {} class AnotherException extends MyException {} class Foo { public function something() { print "throwing AnotherException\n"; throw new AnotherException(); } public function somethingElse() { print "throwing MyException\n"; throw new MyException(); } } $a = new Foo(); try { try { $a->something(); } catch(AnotherException $e) { print "caught AnotherException\n"; $a->somethingElse(); } catch(MyException $e) { print "caught MyException\n"; } } catch(Exception $e) { print "caught Exception\n"; } I would expect this to output: throwing AnotherException caught AnotherException throwing MyException caught MyException But instead it outputs: throwing AnotherException caught AnotherException throwing MyException caught Exception Could anyone explain why it "skips over" catch(MyException $e) ? Thanks.

    Read the article

  • Why catch Exceptions in Java, when you can catch Throwables?

    - by corfield
    Hi We recently had a problem with a Java server application where the application was throwing Errors which were not caught because Error is a separate subclass of Throwable and we were only catching Exceptions. We solved the immediate problem by catching Throwables rather than Exceptions, but this got me thinking as to why you would ever want to catch Exceptions, rather than Throwables, because you would then miss the Errors. So, why would you want to catch Exceptions, when you can catch Throwables?

    Read the article

  • Question about multiple 'catch'

    - by chun
    Can anyone tell me why the output of this class is 'xa'? why the other exception won't be caught? public class Tree { public static void main(String... args){ try { throw new NullPointerException(new Exception().toString()); } catch (NullPointerException e) { System.out.print("x"); } catch (RuntimeException e) { System.out.print("y"); } catch (Exception e) { System.out.print("z"); } finally{System.out.println("a");} } }

    Read the article

  • C++ catch constructor exception

    - by aaa
    hi. I do not seem to understand how to catch constructor exception. Here is relevant code: struct Thread { rysq::cuda::Fock fock_; template<class iterator> Thread(const rysq::cuda::Centers &centers, const iterator (&blocks)[4]) : fock_() { if (!fock_) throw; } }; Thread *ct; try { ct = new Thread(centers_, blocks); } catch(...) { return false; } // catch never happens, So catch statement do not execute and I get unhandled exception. What did I do wrong? this is straight C++ using g++.

    Read the article

  • AS3 try/catch out of memory

    - by StfnoPad
    Hi, I'm loading a few huge images on my flex/as3 app, but I can't manage to catch the error when the flash player runs out of memory. Here is the what I was thinking might work (I use ???? because i dont know what to catch): try{ images = new Array(frames); for (var i:uint = 0; i < frames; i++){ imagesBA[i] = new BitmapData(width, height, false, 0x000000FF); } } catch(error:????){ Alert.show("Out of memory!"); } Any idea what ???? can be? Or does anyone knows how to catch when there is no memory for a variable?

    Read the article

  • Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a predictable outcome?

    - by Mrk Mnl
    Is there a phrase to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any possible value for its arguments there is a predicatable outcome? i.e. all the ramifications have been considered whatever the context? A simple example would be the below function: function returns string get_item_type(int type_no) { if(type_no < 10) return "hockey stick" else if (type_no < 20) return "bulldozer" else return "unknown" } (excuse the dismal pseudo code) No matter what number is supplied all possibiblites are catered for. My question is: is there a word to fill the blank here: "get_item_type() is ______ complete" ? (The answer is not Turing Complete - that is something quite different - but I annoyingly always think of something as "Turing Complete" when I am thinking of the above).

    Read the article

  • Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or program is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a defined outcome?

    - by Mrk Mnl
    Is there a phrase or word to describe an algorithim or programme is complete in that given any value for its arguments there is a defined outcome? i.e. all the ramifications have been considered whatever the context? A simple example would be the below function: function returns string get_item_type(int type_no) { if(type_no < 10) return "hockey stick" else if (type_no < 20) return "bulldozer" else return "unknown" } (excuse the dismal pseudo code) No matter what number is supplied all possibiblites are catered for. My question is: is there a word to fill the blank here: "get_item_type() is ______ complete" ? (The answer is not Turing Complete - that is something quite different - but I annoyingly always think of something as "Turing Complete" when I am thinking of the above).

    Read the article

  • C# Throw Exception on use Assert?

    - by guazz
    I have a system where the employeeId must alway exist unless there is some underlying problem. The way I see it, is that I have two choices to check this code: 1: public void GetEmployee(Employee employee) { bool exists = EmployeeRepository.VerifyIdExists(Employee.Id); if (!exists) { throw new Exception("Id does not exist); } } or 2: public void GetEmployee(Employee employee) { EmployeeRepository.AssertIfNotFound(Employee.Id); } Is option #2 acceptable in the C# language? I like it because it's tidy in that i don't like looking at "throw new Exception("bla bla bla") type messages outsite the class scope.

    Read the article

  • Is there any reason to throw a DivideByZeroException?

    - by Atomiton
    Are there any cases when it's a good idea to throw errors that can be avoided? I'm thinking specifically of the DivideByZeroException and NullReferenceException For example: double numerator = 10; double denominator = getDenominatorFromUser(); if( denominator == 0 ){ throw new DivideByZeroException("You can't divide by Zero!"); } Are there any reasons for throwing an error like this? NOTE: I'm not talking about catching these errors, but specifically in knowing if there are ever good reasons for throwing them.

    Read the article

  • cflock do not throw timeout for same url called in same browser

    - by Pritesh Patel
    I am trying lock block on page test.cfm and below is code written on page. <cfscript> writeOutput("Before lock at #now()#"); lock name="threadlock" timeout="3" type="exclusive" { writeOutput("<br/>started at #now()#"); thread action="sleep" duration="10000"; writeOutput("<br/>ended at #now()#"); } writeOutput("<br/>After lock at #now()#"); </cfscript> assuming my url for page is http://localhost.local/test.cfm and running it on browser in two different tabs. I was expecting one of the url will throw timeout error after 3 second since another url lock it atleast for 10 seconds due to thread sleep. Surprisingly I do not get any timeout error rather second page call run after 10 seconds as first call finish execution. But I am appending some url parameter (e.g. http://localhost.local/test.cfm?q=1) will throw error. Also I am calling same url in different browser then one of the call will throw timeout issue. Is lock based on session and url? Update Here is output for two different cases: Case 1: TAB1 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:35'} started at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:35'} ended at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} After lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} TAB2 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} started at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} ended at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:55'} After lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:55'} Case 2: TAB1 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:18'} started at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:18'} ended at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:28'} After lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:28'} TAB2 Url: http://localhost.local/test/test.cfm? (Added ? at the end) Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:27:20'} A timeout occurred while attempting to lock threadlock. The error occurred in C:/inetpub/wwwroot/test/test.cfm: line 13 11 : 12 : <cfoutput>Before lock at #now()#</cfoutput> 13 : <cflock name="threadlock" timeout="3" type="exclusive"> 14 : <cfoutput><br/>started at #now()#</cfoutput> 15 : <cfthread action="sleep" duration="10000"/> ... Result for case 2 as expected. For case 1, strange thing I just noticed is tab 2 output "Before lock at {ts '2013-10-18 09:21:45'} indicates that whole request start after 10 seconds (means after the complete execution of first tab) when I have fired it in second URL just after 2 seconds of first tabs.

    Read the article

  • Java Custom exception throw behaves differently between different Projects

    - by Pablo
    I am attempting to call the following in my code: public void checkParticleLightRestriction(Particle parent) throws LightException { if ( parent == null ) { throw new LightException("quantum-particle-restrict.23", this); } In one Project the exception is thrown and the effect is similar to calling "return" whereby I am returned back to the point immediately succeeding where this method was called. However in another Project I get thrown completed out of the current package and to a point way prior to the point preceeding this method. It likes instead of being kicked out of a bar I am being deported all the way out of the country. My option are the wrap the throw in a try / catch but I am wondering why this difference in behaviour beween the 2 projects ?

    Read the article

  • Rest client throw timeout exception

    - by shandu
    Hi, I have create REST client in C# using example on this page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa395208(v=vs.90).aspx. Server is built in PHP. When I send request to some urls I have this exception: The request channel timed out while waiting for a reply after 00:00:59.9531250. Increase the timeout value passed to the call to Request or increase the SendTimeout value on the Binding. The time allotted to this operation may have been a portion of a longer timeout. But, sometimes, when I debug code, I get response. How to solve this?

    Read the article

  • Rest client throw timeout exception

    - by shandu
    Hi, I have create REST client in C# using example on this page: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa395208(v=vs.90).aspx. Server is built in PHP. When I send request to some urls I have this exception: The request channel timed out while waiting for a reply after 00:00:59.9531250. Increase the timeout value passed to the call to Request or increase the SendTimeout value on the Binding. The time allotted to this operation may have been a portion of a longer timeout. But, sometimes, when I debug code, I get response. How to solve this?

    Read the article

  • Sendmail yields "user unkown" errors even after (wrongly) setting up a catch-all account

    - by user59240
    I was trying to follow the instructions found here to set up a catch-all account, but still I get the following message for mails sent to non-existent users: The error that the other server returned was: 550 550 5.1.1 [email protected]... User unknown (state 14). Everything else works, though... /etc/mail/local-host-names and /etc/mail/virtusertable were set up as instructed. Any advice? Thanks!

    Read the article

  • How to throw a 404 error from htaccess?

    - by John Isaacks
    Everything I find seems to be about created a custom 404 page. That is not what I am trying to do. If I want to block access to a page I can do this in htaccess: RewriteRule pattern - [F] However, "Forbidden" hints that the page does exists. I want the page to appear to not even exist. So I would like to give a 404 error instead of a 403. Then have it render whatever 404 page would render if the resource really wasn't there. How can I do that?

    Read the article

  • Should I catch exceptions thrown when closing java.sql.Connection

    - by jb
    Connection.close() may throw SqlException, but I have always assumed that it is safe to ignore any such exceptions (and I have never seen code that does not ignore them). Normally I would write: try{ connection.close(); }catch(Exception e) {} Or try{ connection.close(); }catch(Exception e) { logger.log(e.getMessage(), e); } The question is: Is it bad practice (and has anyone had problems when ignoring such exeptions). When Connection.close() does throw any exception. If it is bad how should I handle the exception. Comment: I know that discarding exceptions is evil, but I'm reffering only to exceptions thrown when closing a connection (and as I've seen this is fairly common in this case). Does anyone know when Connection.close() may throw anything?

    Read the article

  • Is `catch(...) { throw; }` a bad practice?

    - by ereOn
    While I agree that catching ... without rethrowing is indeed wrong, I however believe that using constructs like this: try { // Stuff } catch (...) { // Some cleanup throw; } Is acceptable in cases where RAII is not applicable. (Please, don't ask... not everybody in my company likes object-oriented programming and RAII is often seen as "useless school stuff"...) My coworkers says that you should always know what exceptions are to be thrown and that you can always use constructs like: try { // Stuff } catch (exception_type1&) { // Some cleanup throw; } catch (exception_type2&) { // Some cleanup throw; } catch (exception_type3&) { // Some cleanup throw; } Is there a well admited good practice regarding these situations?

    Read the article

  • Catching OutOfMemoryError

    - by dotsid
    Documentation for java.lang.Error says: An Error is a subclass of Throwable that indicates serious problems that a reasonable application should not try to catch But as java.lang.Error is subclass of java.lang.Throwable I can catch this type of throwable. I understand why this is not good idea to catch this sort of exceptions. As far as I understand, if we decide to caught it, the catch handler should not allocate any memory by itself. Otherwise OutOfMemoryError will be thrown again. So, my question is: is there any real word scenarios when catching java.lang.OutOfMemoryError may be a good idea? if we catching java.lang.OutOfMemoryError how can we sure that catch handler doesn't allocate any memory by itself (any tools or best practicies)? Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

  • Catching java.lang.OutOfMemoryError

    - by dotsid
    Documentation for java.lang.Error says: An Error is a subclass of Throwable that indicates serious problems that a reasonable application should not try to catch But as java.lang.Error is subclass of java.lang.Throwable I can catch this type of throwable. I understand why this is not good idea to catch this sort of exceptions. As far as I understand, if we decide to caught it, the catch handler should not allocate any memory by itself. Otherwise OutOfMemoryError will be thrown again. So, my question is: is there any real word scenarios when catching java.lang.OutOfMemoryError may be a good idea? if we catching java.lang.OutOfMemoryError how can we sure that catch handler doesn't allocate any memory by itself (any tools or best practicies)? Thanks a lot.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16  | Next Page >