Does it make sense?
I think the code below does nothing...
try {
sm.checkPermission(url.openConnection().getPermission());
} catch (SecurityException e) {
}
If access is not permitted based on the current security policy, then
it will throw a SecurityException. So if you want to ignore the
exception, why to call the checkPermission?
On 1/9/07, Alexey Petrenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Sian,
the logic looks OK for me in this method. SecurityException shows that
testing url should not be added to reduced list in this case.
SY, Alexey
2007/1/8, Sian January <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Hello everyone,
>
> I have recently been looking at ignored Exceptions in luni (i.e. places
> where an Exception is caught but the catch block is empty). These are
> generally a bad idea because if an Exception does occur it is lost - the
> user doesn't see it and it's not logged anywhere either, so if it causes a
> problem in the program it is very difficult to find the root cause.
>
> I would like to discuss one of these in particular, in
> URLCLassLoader.findResources where an IOException and a
> SecurityException are ignored. Since the signature of the method says that
> it throws an IOException (and SecurityException is a subtype of
> RuntimeException) I thought the try-catch block could probably be removed
> entirely. However it is an API method and I am finding it difficult to
> write a test case for this because I'm not sure how to force either of those
> Exceptions.
>
> Geir suggested it might be an interesting topic for the mailing list so
> please post your thoughts. Also if anyone knows how to write the test case
> that would be especially helpful. Details at
> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/HARMONY-2939.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Sian
>
> --
> Sian January
>
> IBM Java Technology Centre, UK
>
>
--
Tony Wu
China Software Development Lab, IBM
