Not sure we can make any useful assumptions about what the Qpid error
logging/exception handling will definitely do higher up though :-)
M
On 4/10/07, Rupert Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, that would do too.
On 10/04/07, Martin Ritchie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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
>
