Good Q, either way is "correct" I suppose...like you noted it's developer preference.
Obviously with the CFIF method you are not catching a CF error per se - you are preventing it from happening full stop and catching it with defensive coding. In some cases such as a URL I would simply refresh the current page back to the pre-manipulated/non numeric ID URL. I suppose in the case of passing an ID say from a form I would try and catch it via JS first, then via CF but the whole CFIF block would be in a cftry/block as well to catch for any unforeseen errors no necessarily related to the ID. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 15 February 2006 15:38 To: CF-Talk Subject: Try/Catch vs. direct error handling This is a question of best practices and why. When I know there's a chance of a specific error, I tend to code specifically to handle it. Others code generally using try/catch. Which is seen as best in other languages and why? I doubt there's any real performance issue between them, so it's a question of industry standard and style. For example, if I know an ID is needed on a page and it has to be a numeric I'd do: <CFIF Not IsDefined('ID')> An ID is needed <CFELSEIF Not IsNumeric(ID)> The passed ID needs to be numeric </CFIF> Others do: <CFTRY> <cfparam name="ID" type="numeric"> <CFCATCH> You must pass a numeric ID </CFCATCH> </CFTRY> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:4:232330 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/4 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:4 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.4 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
