I think there are least two issues here that are becoming confused 1 - how to get context information for an error or warning. It think three suggestions have come out on this thread 1-1 - push/pop it into the monitor 1-2 - change method signatures to pass it down 1-3 - catch thrown exceptions and add it after the fact
2 - should we stop processing after an error 2-1 - yes 2-2 - no, and make all subsequent processing immune to NPE etc. 2-3 - maybe - depending an anaylsis of what code follows 2-4 - maybe - depending an anaylsis of what code follows and on whether context is available for the first error I don't mind which answer to question 1 we choose. I started with 1-1 but am happy to accept but 1-2 and 1-3 can also be made to work for us. I would though argue for consistency. I.e. we try and follow a single pattern so that, as we develop new function and maintain existing function, it's clear what we are supposed to do. My preference for 2 is 2-1. If the consensus is really that we must continue processing after an error then again I would argue for consistency and clear rules for the situations under which this processing is carried out. My second preference would be for 2-3. Regards Simon
