I'm in favour of the multiple exception catch. I think the common use
for this is to catch a series of checked exceptions in a certain way,
while avoiding catching unchecked exceptions which you want to
propogate.
This is a good thing, because often I've seen code that catches
Exception for brevit
> > > try {
> > >
> > > } catch( (JMSException | RemoteException | SQLException) e) {
> > > }
> > try {
> > ...
> > } catch (Exception e) {
> > ...
> > }
> Usually you don't want to just catch all exceptions in a single block.
> Instead you want to have clusters of exceptions
And w
I imagine this request needs to goto infrastructure, though it seems to me
that needing apcvs implies that maybe the incubator site is being
automatically updated periodically.
Especially as there's an incubator and incubator-site group too. So
probably an email to the incubator list to ask how
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:31:11 -0800, Craig McClanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > ...
> > > How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one blo
On Sat, 2004-11-20 at 05:31, Craig McClanahan wrote:
> How about two lines, which you can already do today?
>
> try {
> ...
> } catch (Exception e) {
> ...
> }
The problem with such approach is that it catches all exception, checked
or not (see below)
> seems to be a standarized "log it and
Hi all,
could somebody add me to apcvs-unix-group?
my account is matzew
I would like to update the website for MyFaces,
which is in incubator.
Thanks,
Matthias
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comman
Am Sa, 2004-11-20 um 08.31 schrieb Craig McClanahan:
> On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 23:21:02 -0800, Daniel Rall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2004-10-29 at 13:35 -0400, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > ...
> > > How about just being able to do multiple Exceptions in one block?
> > >
> > > try {
> > >
