On Tue, 05 Jun 2012 21:48:09 +0200, Josh Berry <[email protected]> wrote:
It is easy to contrive the situation where you don't want something to just go bang on the first error, though. Does anyone like the scenario where you get an error and fix it, only to be shown a new error that could have been additionally been reported in the first pass?
It's easy to contrive that situation too, thinking of a consequentiality so that the second error only happens in consequence of the previous one, or it will happen only after you fix the previous one :-)
But I'd say that both examples are inappropriate. The point is that I want perhaps something that processes the batch up to the end, then I go to the log file and see the NPE where they happened, versus the fact that I have a result set which is apparently ok, but now I have to dig into it to 1) search for errors and then 2) rebuild the sequence of things that happened back to the error.
-- Fabrizio Giudici - Java Architect, Project Manager Tidalwave s.a.s. - "We make Java work. Everywhere." [email protected] http://tidalwave.it - http://fabriziogiudici.it -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "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.
