Excellent advice! ... but isn't he doing something with it already? He's returning an empty query - at least that seems to be the intention of the code i see there, even if it isn't immediately apparent.
I've done something similar in a few places within functions where i didn't want the application to fail - i just wanted to alter the behavior if the "try" fails. Would it would be better if it was coded more explicitly? Or if this exception would be at least logged somehow? I'm curious :) -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Patrick McElhaney Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2005 5:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [CFCDev] cfc check <cfcatch type="Any"><!--- do nothing ---></cfcatch> Never _ever_ do that! If you're going to catch an exception, do something with it. Don't just bury it. I can't tell you how many "that's not possible" moments I've had while working with legacy code that contains buried exceptions. ---------------------------------------------------------- You are subscribed to cfcdev. To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with the words 'unsubscribe cfcdev' as the subject of the email. CFCDev is run by CFCZone (www.cfczone.org) and supported by CFXHosting (www.cfxhosting.com). An archive of the CFCDev list is available at www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
