This error logging doesn't entirely convince me either:
catch (TypeAException e)
{
log.error("Went wrong!", e);
throw new TypeBException(e);
}
I think I would just do:
catch (TypeAException e)
{
throw new TypeBException(e);
}
The rethrow here is simply to re-cast the original exception as a different
type. Presumably it will be logged as an error again somewhere higher up.
Rupert
On 09/04/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
One problem I've often found with exceptions, is the hassle of writing so
many constructors. One for just a message, one for message + wrapped
exception, one for message + error code, and every permutation thereof. A
simple scheme I've used previously to avoid this is simply to allow
parameters in exception constructor to be null, if they are not to be set,
and just always use a single constructor. For example:
/**
* Root of the application exception hierarchy.
*/
public class MyException extends Exception
{
/**
* @param message May be null if not to be set.
* @param code May be null if not to be set.
* @param cause May be null if not to be set.
*/
public MyException(String message, Integer code, Throwable cause)
{
super(message == null ? "" : message, cause);
this._errorCode = code == null ? 0 : code.intValue();
...
}
}
...
throw new MyException("Went wrong.", null, null);
Some people might object to the nulls, but it does take the pain out of
writing exception classes.
Rupert
On 09/04/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Although, I notice that there is a JMSAMQException specifically for the
> case where an AMQException is to be rethrown as a JMSException.
>
> On 09/04/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Yes, there's quite a lot of it in there. I'm going to leave some of it
> > well alone for the moment, but fix some things that don't really alter the
> > semantics of the code:
> >
> > Here's one. Don't do this:
> >
> > catch (SomeException e)
> > {
> > throw new MyException("Something went wrong.");
> > }
> >
> > Do this instead:
> >
> > catch (SomeException e)
> > {
> > throw new MyException("Something went wrong.", e);
> > }
> >
> > of for JMSException which doesn't accept wrapped exceptions through
> > its constructors, have to do something like:
> >
> > catch (SomeException e)
> > {
> > JMSException jmse = new JMSException("Something went wrong.");
> > jmse.setLinkedException(e);
> > throw jmse;
> > }
> >
> > This isn't majorly wrong, just annoying to lose half the exception
> > stack trace, when tracking down bugs from log files.
> >
> > Rupert
> >
>
>
