Search Results

Search found 40167 results on 1607 pages for 'try catch finally'.

Page 1/1607 | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12  | Next Page >

  • Difference between try-finally and try-catch

    - by Vijay Kotari
    What's the difference between try { fooBar(); } finally { barFoo(); } and try { fooBar(); } catch(Throwable throwable) { barFoo(throwable); // Does something with throwable, logs it, or handles it. } I like the second version better because it gives me access to the Throwable. Is there any logical difference or a preferred convention between the two variations? Also, is there a way to access the exception from the finally clause?

    Read the article

  • Questions regarding ordering of catch statements in catch block - compiler specific or language stan

    - by Andy
    I am currently using Visual Studio Express C++ 2008, and have some questions about catch block ordering. Unfortunately, I could not find the answer on the internet so I am posing these questions to the experts. I notice that unless catch (...) is placed at the end of a catch block, the compilation will fail with error C2311. For example, the following would compile: catch (MyException) { } catch (...) { } while the following would not: catch (...) { } catch (MyException) { } a. Could I ask if this is defined in the C++ language standard, or if this is just the Microsoft compiler being strict? b. Do C# and Java have the same rules as well? c. As an aside, I have also tried making a base class and a derived class, and putting the catch statement for the base class before the catch statement for the derived class. This compiled without problems. Are there no language standards guarding against such practice please?

    Read the article

  • Exception from within a finally block

    - by schrödingers cat
    Consider the following code where LockDevice() could possibly fail and throw an exception on ist own. What happens in C# if an exception is raised from within a finally block? UnlockDevice(); try { DoSomethingWithDevice(); } finally { LockDevice(); // can fail with an exception }

    Read the article

  • Java try finally variations

    - by Petr Gladkikh
    This question nags me for a while but I did not found complete answer to it yet (e.g. this one is for C# http://stackoverflow.com/questions/463029/initializing-disposable-resources-outside-or-inside-try-finally). Consider two following Java code fragments: Closeable in = new FileInputStream("data.txt"); try { doSomething(in); } finally { in.close(); } and second variation Closeable in = null; try { in = new FileInputStream("data.txt"); doSomething(in); } finally { if (null != in) in.close(); } The part that worries me is that the thread might be somewhat interrupted between the moment resource is acquired (e.g. file is opened) but resulting value is not assigned to respective local variable. Is there any other scenarios the thread might be interrupted in the point above other than: InterruptedException (e.g. via Thread#interrupt()) or OutOfMemoryError exception is thrown JVM exits (e.g. via kill, System.exit()) Hardware fail (or bug in JVM for complete list :) I have read that second approach is somewhat more "idiomatic" but IMO in the scenario above there's no difference and in all other scenarios they are equal. So the question: What are the differences between the two? Which should I prefer if I do concerned about freeing resources (especially in heavily multi-threading applications)? Why? I would appreciate if anyone points me to parts of Java/JVM specs that support the answers.

    Read the article

  • try catch finally

    - by gligom
    Maby this is simple for you, but for me is not. I have this code: Private int InsertData() { int rezultat = 0; try { if (sqlconn.State != ConnectionState.Open) { sqlconn.Open(); } rezultat = (int)cmd.ExecuteScalar(); } catch (Exception ex) { lblMesaje.Text = "Eroare: " + ex.Message.ToString(); } finally { if (sqlconn.State != ConnectionState.Closed) { sqlconn.Close(); } } return rezultat; } Is just for inserting a new record in a table. Even if this throw an error "Specified cast is not valid." "rezultat=(int)cmd.ExecuteScalar();" - the code is executed and the row is inserted in the database, and the execution continues. Why it continues? Maby i don't understand the try catch finally yet Smile | :) Thank you!

    Read the article

  • in C# try -catch , can't catch the exception

    - by sunglim
    below code can't catch the exception. does catch can't catch the exception which occured in the function? try { Arche.Members.Feedback.FeedbackBiz_Tx a = new Arche.Members.Feedback.FeedbackBiz_Tx(); a.AddFreeSubscriptionMember(itemNo, buyerID, itemName, DateTime.Today, DateTime.Today); } catch(Exception ex) { RegisterAlertScript(ex.Message); } ... public void AddFreeSubscriptionMember(string itemNo, string buyerID, string itemName, DateTime fsStartDate, DateTime fsEndDate) { FeedbackBiz_NTx bizNTx = new FeedbackBiz_NTx(); if (bizNTx.ExistFreeSubscription(buyerID, itemNo)) { throw new Exception("Exception."); }

    Read the article

  • TRY CATCH with Linked Server in SQL Server 2005 Not Working

    - by Robert Stanley
    Hello, I am trying to catch sql error raised when I execute a stored procedure on a linked server. Both Servers are running SQL Server 2005. To prove the issue I have created a stored procedure on the linked server called Raise error that executes the following code: RAISERROR('An error', 16, 1); If I execute the stored procedure directly on the linked server using the following code I get a result set with 'An error', '16' as expected (ie the code enters the catch block): BEGIN TRY EXEC [dbo].[RaiseError]; END TRY BEGIN CATCH DECLARE @ErrMsg nvarchar(4000), @ErrSeverity int; SELECT @ErrMsg = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @ErrSeverity = ERROR_SEVERITY(); SELECT @ErrMsg, @ErrSeverity; END CATCH If I run the following code on my local server to execute the stored procedure on the linked server then SSMS gives me the message 'Query completed with errors', .Msg 50000, Level 16, State 1, Procedure RaiseError, Line 13 An error' BEGIN TRY EXEC [Server].[Catalog].[dbo].RaiseError END TRY BEGIN CATCH DECLARE @SPErrMsg nvarchar(4000), @SPErrSeverity int; SELECT @SPErrMsg = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @SPErrSeverity = ERROR_SEVERITY(); SELECT @SPErrMsg, @SPErrSeverity; END CATCH My Question is can I catch the error generated when the Linked server stored procedure executes? Thanks in advance!

    Read the article

  • Understanding try..catch in Javascript

    - by user295189
    I have this try and catch problem. I am trying to redirect to a different page. But sometimes it does and some times it doesnt. I think the problem is in try and catch . can someone help me understand this. Thanks var pg = new Object(); var da = document.all; var wo = window.opener; pg.changeHideReasonID = function(){ if(pg.hideReasonID.value == 0 && pg.hideReasonID.selectedIndex > 0){ pg.otherReason.style.backgroundColor = "ffffff"; pg.otherReason.disabled = 0; pg.otherReason.focus(); } else { pg.otherReason.style.backgroundColor = "f5f5f5"; pg.otherReason.disabled = 1; } } pg.exit = function(pid){ try { if(window.opener.hideRecordReload){ window.opener.hideRecordReload(pg.recordID, pg.recordTypeID); } else { window.opener.pg.hideRecord(pg.recordID, pg.recordTypeID); } } catch(e) {} try { window.opener.pg.hideEncounter(pg.recordID); } catch(e) {} try { window.opener.pg.hideRecordResponse(pg.hideReasonID.value == 0 ? pg.otherReason.value : pg.hideReasonID.options[pg.hideReasonID.selectedIndex].text); } catch(e) {} try { window.opener.pg.hideRecord_Response(pg.recordID, pg.recordTypeID); } catch(e) {} try { window.opener.pg.hideRecord_Response(pg.recordID, pg.recordTypeID); } catch(e) {} try { window.opener.window.parent.frames[1].pg.loadQualityMeasureRequest(); } catch(e) {} try { window.opener.pg.closeWindow(); } catch(e) {} parent.loadCenter2({reportName:'redirectedpage',patientID:pid}); parent.$.fancybox.close(); } pg.hideRecord = function(){ var pid = this.pid; pg.otherReason.value = pg.otherReason.value.trim(); if(pg.hideReasonID.selectedIndex == 0){ alert("You have not indicated your reason for hiding this record."); pg.hideReasonID.focus(); } else if(pg.hideReasonID.value == 0 && pg.hideReasonID.selectedIndex > 0 && pg.otherReason.value.length < 2){ alert("You have indicated that you wish to enter a reason\nnot on the list, but you have not entered a reason."); pg.otherReason.focus(); } else { pg.workin(1); var n = new Object(); n.noheaders = 1; n.recordID = pg.recordID; n.recordType = pg.recordType; n.recordTypeID = pg.recordTypeID; n.encounterID = request.encounterID; n.hideReasonID = pg.hideReasonID.value; n.hideReason = pg.hideReasonID.value == 0 ? pg.otherReason.value : pg.hideReasonID.options[pg.hideReasonID.selectedIndex].text; Connect.Ajax.Post("/emr/hideRecord/act_hideRecord.php", n, pg.exit(pid)); } } pg.init = function(){ pg.blocker = da.blocker; pg.hourglass = da.hourglass; pg.content = da.pageContent; pg.recordType = da.recordType.value; pg.recordID = parseInt(da.recordID.value); pg.recordTypeID = parseInt(da.recordTypeID.value); pg.information = da.information; pg.hideReasonID = da.hideReasonID; pg.hideReasonID.onchange = pg.changeHideReasonID; pg.hideReasonID.tabIndex = 1; pg.otherReason = da.otherReason; pg.otherReason.tabIndex = 2; pg.otherReason.onblur = function(){ this.value = this.value.trim(); } pg.otherReason.onfocus = function(){ this.select(); } pg.btnCancel = da.btnCancel; pg.btnCancel.tabIndex = 4; pg.btnCancel.title = "Close this window"; pg.btnCancel.onclick = function(){ //window.close(); parent.$.fancybox.close(); } pg.btnHide = da.btnHide; pg.btnHide.tabIndex = 3; pg.btnHide.onclick = pg.hideRecord; pg.btnHide.title = "Hide " + pg.recordType.toLowerCase() + " record"; document.body.onselectstart = function(){ if(event.srcElement.tagName.search(/INPUT|TEXT/i)){ return false; } } pg.workin(0); } pg.workin = function(){ var n = arguments.length ? arguments[0] : 1; pg.content.disabled = pg.hideReasonID.disabled = n; pg.blocker.style.display = pg.hourglass.style.display = n ? "block" : "none"; if(n){ pg.otherReason.disabled = 1; pg.otherReason.style.backgroundColor = "f5f5f5"; } else { pg.otherReason.disabled = !(pg.hideReasonID.value == 0 && pg.hideReasonID.selectedIndex > 0); pg.otherReason.style.backgroundColor = pg.otherReason.disabled ? "f5f5f5" : "ffffff"; pg.hideReasonID.focus(); } }

    Read the article

  • Java: error handling with try-catch, empty-try-catch, dummy-return

    - by HH
    A searh uses recursively defined function that easily throws exceptions. I have tried 3 ways to handle exeptions: to ignore with an empty-try-catch() add-dummy-return stop err-propagation due to exeption throw a specific except. (this part I don't really understand. If I throw except, can I force it to continue elsewhere, not continuing the old except-thrown-path?) Some exceptions I do not realy care like during execution removed files -exception (NullPointer) but some I really do like unknown things. Possible exceptions: // 1. if a temp-file or some other file removed during execution -> except. // 2. if no permiss. -> except. // 3. ? --> except. The code is Very import for the whole program. I earlier added clittered-checks, try-catches, avoided-empty-try-catches but it really blurred the logic. Some stoned result here would make the code later much easier to maintain. It was annoying to track random exeptions due to some random temp-file removal! How would you handle exceptions for the critical part? Code public class Find { private Stack<File> fs=new Stack<File>(); private Stack<File> ds=new Stack<File>(); public Stack<File> getD(){ return ds;} public Stack<File> getF(){ return fs;} public Find(String path) { // setting this type of special checks due to errs // propagation makes the code clittered if(path==null) { System.out.println("NULL in Find(path)"); System.exit(9); } this.walk(path); } private void walk( String path ) { File root = new File( path ); File[] list = root.listFiles(); //TODO: dangerous with empty try-catch?! try{ for ( File f : list ) { if ( f.isDirectory() ) { walk( f.getAbsolutePath() ); ds.push(f); } else { fs.push(f); } } }catch(Exception e){e.printStackTrace();} } } Code refactored from here.

    Read the article

  • .Net: What is your confident approach in "Catch" section of try-catch block, When developing CRUD op

    - by odiseh
    hi, I was wondering if there would be any confident approach for use in catch section of try-catch block when developing CRUD operations(specially when you use a Database as your data source) in .Net? well, what's your opinion about below lines? public int Insert(string name, Int32 employeeID, string createDate) { SqlConnection connection = new SqlConnection(); connection.ConnectionString = this._ConnectionString; try { SqlCommand command = connection.CreateCommand(); command.CommandType = CommandType.StoredProcedure; command.CommandText = "UnitInsert"; if (connection.State != ConnectionState.Open) connection.Open(); SqlCommandBuilder.DeriveParameters(command); command.Parameters["@Name"].Value = name; command.Parameters["@EmployeeID"].Value = employeeID; command.Parameters["@CreateDate"].Value = createDate; int i = command.ExecuteNonQuery(); command.Dispose(); return i; } catch { **// how do you "catch" any possible error here?** return 0; // } finally { connection.Close(); connection.Dispose(); connection = null; } }

    Read the article

  • Catch all exceptions in Scala 2.8 RC1

    - by Michel Krämer
    I have the following dummy Scala code in the file test.scala: class Transaction { def begin() {} def commit() {} def rollback() {} } object Test extends Application { def doSomething() {} val t = new Transaction() t.begin() try { doSomething() t.commit() } catch { case _ => t.rollback() } } If I compile this on Scala 2.8 RC1 with scalac -Xstrict-warnings test.scala I'll get the following warning: test.scala:16: warning: catch clause swallows everything: not advised. case _ => t.rollback() ^ one warning found So, if catch-all expressions are not advised, how am I supposed to implement such a pattern instead? And apart from that why are such expressions not advised anyhow?

    Read the article

  • How to make a try-catch block that iterates through all objects of a list and keeps on calling a met

    - by aperson
    Basically iterating through a list and, - Invoke method on first object - Catch first exception (if any); if there are no more exceptions to catch, return normally. Otherwise, keep on invoking method until all exceptions are caught. - Move on to next object. I can iterate through each object, invoke the method, and catch one exception but I do not know how to continuously invoke the method on it and keep on catching exceptions :S Thanks :)

    Read the article

  • Where to set catch-all address in Postfix (virtual mailboxes in affect)

    - by Cem
    I successfully configured Postfix to deliver messages to virtual mailboxes. I can set aliases and pipes inside /etc/postfix/virtual and mailboxes inside /etc/postfix/virtual_mailbox files. However, whenever I set a catch-all domain and point to a remote email address, it overrides all other virtual mailboxes and virtual aliases set in postfix. How can I set a catch-all forwarding to the remote email address when virtual mailbox is enabled? I set catch-all like this: @mydomain.com [email protected] Thanks for your help!

    Read the article

  • Return value changed after finally

    - by Nestor
    I have the following code: public bool ProcessData(String data) { try { result= CheckData(data); if (TextUtils.isEmpty(result)) { summary="Data is invalid"; return false; } ... finally { Period period = new Period(startTime, new LocalDateTime()); String duration = String.format("Duration: %s:%s", period.getMinutes(), period.getSeconds()); LogCat(duration); } return true; As I learned from this question, the finally block is executed after the return statement. So I modified my code according to that, and in the finally I inserted code that does not modify the output. Strangely, the code OUTSIDE the finally block does. My method always returns true. As suggested, it is not a good idea to have 2 return. What should I do?

    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

  • ${extension} empty after catch-all alias in Postfix

    - by Paul Wagener
    I want a setup where an e-mailaddress like [email protected] redirects mail to the folder foo. I've already got dovecot configured and tested. It is called by postfix with this line in master.cf: dovecot unix - n n - - pipe flags=DRhu user=vmail:vmail argv=/usr/lib/dovecot/deliver -f ${sender} -d ${user}@${nexthop} -n -m ${extension} I expect ${extension} to expand to 'foo' but it is always empty. I've added recipient_delimiter = + to my main.cf. How can I get it to work? Update: I've got a catch-all alias that redirects @domain.com to [email protected]. It seems that the extension is empty because of this. So the question becomes: Can I have a catch-all so that [email protected] redirects to [email protected] without explicitly defining either the random or the ext part?

    Read the article

  • Weird bug in Java try-catch-finally

    - by kcr
    I'm using JODConverter to convert .xls and .ppt to .pdf format. For this i have code something like try{ //do something System.out.println("connecting to open office"); OpenOfficeConnection connection = new SocketOpenOfficeConnection(8100); System.out.println("connection object created"); connection.connect(); System.out.println("connection to open office successful"); //do something if(!successful) throw new FileNotFoundException(); }catch(Exception e){ System.out.println("hello here"); System.out.println("Caught Exception while converting to PDF "); LOGGER.error("Error in converting media" + e.getMessage()); throw new MediaConversionFailedException(); }finally{ decode_pdf.closePdfFile(); System.out.println("coming in finally"); //do something here } My Output : connecting to open office connection object created coming in finally P.S. return type of method is void How is it possible ? Even if there is some problem in connection.connect(), it s'd come in catch block. confused

    Read the article

  • In Java, does return trump finally?

    - by jonny five
    If I have a try/catch block with returns inside it, will the finally block be called? For example: try { something(); return success; } catch (Exception e) { return failure; } finally { System.out.println "i don't know if this will get printed out." } I know I can just type this in an see what happens (which is what I'm about to do, actually) but when I googled for answers nothing came up, so I figured I'd throw this up as a question. Thanks!

    Read the article

  • Cant get the catch statement to catch the custom exception

    - by user282807
    i have created a custom exception in the business layer and also using wcf layer where I am calling the methods in the business layer then in another website i am calling the method from wcf. i can see the message that i wrote in custom exception but the program goes staright to exception (the second catch block) instead of hitting my first catch block(where the custom exception is) when i hover over the exception i see my message but it's inside something called faultexception which i am not familiar with. and in there under details..there i see type= CanOnlyApplyOnceException. here is my code: protected void AddNewApplication() { try { using (var proxy = new ServiceReference1.ServiceClient()) { proxy.AddApplication(new Application { Credentials = 2, Comments = txtComments.Text, }); } } catch (CanOnlyApplyOnceException c) { ErrorSummary.AddError(c.Message, this); return; } catch (Exception) { lblStatus.Text = "There has been an error. Please try again"; } }

    Read the article

  • Setting up Catch-All mail address on *nix

    - by Jonas Byström
    Warning: I'm a total *nix n00b. I need to get "catch-all" mail setup on OpenBSD. I'm just using the pre-installed mail service. Especially I want mail sent to `abc-123-def-geh@localhost' to redirect to 'user@localhost'. Is there a way using the pre-installed stuff or do I need some other software? If so: any suggestions on light-weight, easily configured software?

    Read the article

  • usage of try catch

    - by Muhammed Rauf K
    Which is best: Code Snippet 1 or Code Snippet 2 ? And Why? /* Code Snippet 1 * * Write try-catch in function definition */ void Main(string[] args) { AddMe(); } void AddMe() { try { // Do operations... } catch(Exception e) { } } /* Code Snippet 2 * * Write try-catch where we call the function. */ void Main(string[] args) { try { AddMe(); } catch (Exception e) { } } void AddMe() { // Do operations... }

    Read the article

  • Catch isn't working

    - by neoneye
    I'm baffled. What could be causing 'catch' not to be working and how do I fix it? <?php try { throw new Exception('BOOM'); error_log("should not happen"); } catch(Exception $e) { error_log("should happen: " . $e->getMessage()); } ?> Actual output [27-Apr-2010 09:43:24] PHP Fatal error: Uncaught exception 'Exception' with message 'BOOM' in /mycode/exception_problem/index.php:4 Stack trace: #0 {main} thrown in /mycode/exception_problem/index.php on line 4 Desired output should happen: BOOM PHP version 5.2.3 In php_info() I don't see anywhere exceptions could have been disabled. I have tried with "restore_exception_handler();" but that doesn't make the catch block working. I have also tried with "set_exception_handler(NULL);" but that neither make the catch block working. How do I get the desired output?

    Read the article

  • Try-Catch-Throw in the same Java class

    - by Carlos
    Is it possible to catch a method in the current class the try-catch block is running on? for example: public static void arrayOutOfBoundsException(){ System.out.println("Array out of bounds"); } ..... public static void doingSomething(){ try { if(something[i] >= something_else); } catch (arrayOutOfBoundsException e) { System.out.println("Method Halted!, continuing doing the next thing"); } } If this is possible how will it be the correct way to call the catch method? If this is not possible, could anyone point me in the right direction, of how to stop an exception from halting my program execution in Java without having to create any new classes in the package, or fixing the code that produces ArrayOutOfBoundsException error. Thanks in Advance, A Java Rookie

    Read the article

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