Daniele Perrone <dperr...@it.gnu.org> writes:
> I agree with you, we need a better exceptions management, I want just
> to point out that we need to be careful with the performance. It's
> quite known that the try-catch statement introduce an overhead, in my
> opinion we should keep in mind two simple principles:
yes, that is true. I did some tests and I saw a try-catch is much
slower than an usual return statement; but let's put it in these terms,
in the worst case it happens only once for every request, and I think it
is faster than serving the request normally; the fastest response is an
error message :-)
> - keep the exception class hieararchy as simple as possible, imho we
> should just manage unrecoverable exceptions (errors), and treat
> recoverable exceptional situations without use the exceptions
> mechanism, Keeping in mind this, the goal is just to print an error
> message, with some information useful for the debug, and stop the
> execution.
hm... but imagine the code in this situation, you will check for errors
in two distinct code flows as:
try
{
int err = foo ();
if (err < 0)
{
/* Handle error. */
}
}
catch (...)
{
/* Handle exception. */
}
isn't it too ugly? :-)
> - in the exception fall use the try catch statement as late as
> possible. This should reduce the overhead over the system.
the cost of this approach is to have less precise error messages and I
am not sure it has an additional cost, unless you are going to re-throw
the exception again to the upper level. Is there any benchmark showing
how "as late as possible" is a better choice than the "as precise as
possible" one?
Cheers,
Giuseppe
