I would have suggested a log of
log.debug/trace("Recasting TypeAE to TypeBE");
So the trace can be shown though the log.
On 10/04/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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
> > >
> >
> >
>
--
Martin Ritchie
