Yes, I'm not saying we do it right. I'm just saying we correct things as we find them. I know of at least one instance where I was hit by something like this and the fix used was to detect the error at the initial point of failure.
On 8/3/07, Kevin Menard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Mike Kienenberger [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Friday, August 03, 2007 11:59 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: Exceptions . . . > > > > In my opinion, it's best to trap the error as soon as possible. As > > far as I remember, that's our standard practice, and as we come across > > items like this, we correct them. > > I may be mistaken, but my experience tracking down some problems in the > past couple days indicates that we rarely check that invariants hold > true. Instead, things go as far as they can, the exception is caught, > wrapped, and sent back up the pipeline. I imagine it's been done this > way as a performance benefit, but I'm not sure the overhead would be > that great anyway. Comparisons are pretty cheap. > > -- > Kevin >
