What do people think of the scala approach of no checked exceptions - even checked exceptions are not treated specially by the constructor (personally, I like it).
On Aug 18, 12:55 pm, Christian Catchpole <[email protected]> wrote: > No, i just let that go up. I really try to avoid the declare as null > then set thingy. > > On Aug 18, 12:03 pm, Casper Bang <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > You neglect to handle the checked exception declared by > > prepareStatement no? > > > PreparedStatement stmt = null; > > try{ > > stmt = connection.prepareStatement(sql); > > final ResultSet rs = stmt.executeQuery(); > > try{ > > while (rs.next()){ > > // Stuff... > > { > > } > > finally{ > > rs.close(); > > }} > > > catch(SQLException e){ > > // Logging...} > > > finally{ > > try{ > > stmt.close(); > > } > > catch(SQLException whoTheFuckCares){ > > }; > > > } > > > Really, how many other ways are there to do it I wonder now? (Apart > > from wrapping certain things, like the last try-catch clause in some > > general purpose "closer util"?). > > > /Casper --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "The Java Posse" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/javaposse?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
