On 2 June 2010 14:16, Nick Wienholt <li...@dotnetperformance.com> wrote: > Hi Mike, > >> Fatal exceptions: you might want to do something like write out a >> .dmp file before you put the process out of its misery > > I'd probably prefer to leave this to a tool like ADPlus rather than have > application code (particularly managed application code) do it. There > doesn't seem much advantage of trying to capture the information from a > process in a state of distress.
I've found Adplus to be completely useless, compared to this technique. I get dmp files of the code when it's running perfectly (from customer submitted dmp files from ADPlus), rather than a dmp file that shows where it has failed. You don't need to tell a customer what to do, just get them to send the dmp file/s. You simply need to be disciplined about what you call from inside the code that is generating the file. (and that probably does make it hard for dotnet code(but this is done in a c++ codebase), but it also includes not calling a lot of the CRT) Even if you do get the customer to use ADplus correctly, the error might not show up for another 6 months or so. > > Nick > > -----Original Message----- > From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] On > Behalf Of mike smith > Sent: Wednesday, 2 June 2010 1:14 PM > To: ozDotNet > Subject: Re: Ignoring excpetions in catch > > On 1 June 2010 18:37, James Chapman-Smith <ja...@enigmativity.com> wrote: >> Handling exceptions requires exceptional programming - literally & >> figuratively. >> >> I find that there are very few times that you actually need to handle >> exceptions. Very few. >> >> Rampant exceptional handling creates more nightmares than it solves. It >> makes debugging almost impossible as your code stops at the wrong lines in >> the wrong classes in the wrong projects. >> >> No, my friends, exception handling is generally poorly handled by all but >> the most experienced developers. >> >> Have a read of this article from Eric Lippert - >> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ericlippert/archive/2008/09/10/vexing-exceptions.asp >> x - he sums it up nicely I think. >> > > Fatal exceptions: you might want to do something like write out a > .dmp file before you put the process out of its misery. That'd > normally be SEH, and there are nicer ways of doing it now. > > >> :-) >> >> James. >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com [mailto:ozdotnet-boun...@ozdotnet.com] >> On Behalf Of Arjang Assadi >> Sent: Tuesday, 1 June 2010 10:09 >> To: ozDotNet >> Subject: Ignoring excpetions in catch >> >> I thought only the beginner programmers or programmers without any >> pride in their work or self discipline would write code like this: >> >> try >> { >> //some code goes here >> } >> catch >> { >> //No code here just business as usual, do nothing about the exceptions! >> } >> >> but maybe I am wrong, this http://support.microsoft.com/kb/319465 was >> unexpected! >> in the code in the above link are there any reasons for >> 1)Checking the type, or more generally first checking that at least >> the minimum requirements of an operations will be satisfied before >> using a sledge hammer? >> >> 2)Using some other (better) code e.g. reflection etc. would be >> definitely more preferable to ignoring excpetion? >> >> 3)Any other suggestions? >> >> Regards >> >> Arjang >> >> > > > > -- > Meski > > "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, > you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills > > -- Meski "Going to Starbucks for coffee is like going to prison for sex. Sure, you'll get it, but it's going to be rough" - Adam Hills
