Not unreasonable. What if you are out of memory? Can you restart? Exception is fine at the highest level.
I recommend employing [] on: Error do: [] at various intermediate to high levels of application code -- as distinguished from "library" level objects and packages. At application level, trapping Errors (in bulk!) can lead to much cleaner fault-tolerant code without branching for the dozens of reasons something could fail. And then tabulate those errors and present them (electively) for the user... or to a system log-file. -Cam On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Igor Stasenko <[email protected]> wrote: > On 13 April 2013 18:41, MartinW <[email protected]> wrote: > > I deploy a Pharo desktop application and i want to spare the user from > seeing > > the debugger, because most users would not know what to do with it. > > > > My solution for the moment is to place an [] on: Exception do: [] around > my > > application's entrance point: > > [ "main application workflow" ] on: Exception do: [ self inform: > 'Something > > has gone wrong...'. "and restart application"] > > > > Do you think, this an acceptable solution? Are there others? > > M. > > > > Fairly acceptable. > You need to handle error condition in one way or another, if you don't > wanna > show debugger to user. > > But if your application spawns multiple threads, then it will still > pop up debugger > if error will happen in one of those threads (unless of course you > also wrap everything with exception handler).. > actually handling unexpected (exceptional) cases is a good practice :) > > > > -- > > View this message in context: > http://forum.world.st/Ho-to-spare-a-Pharo-desktop-application-user-from-seeing-the-debugger-tp4681254.html > > Sent from the Pharo Smalltalk Users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > > > > -- > Best regards, > Igor Stasenko. > >
