Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 14:12 +0100 schrieb Tobias Bocanegra:
> i don't think that other than a 500.js is needed. or do you have a
> valid use case?
Not a use case really, but staying in the line: using 500 for a
Throwable is bridging from an exception over to a status code.
Therefore, I would rather like to stay with the Throwable in the first
place.
Checking for 500 afterwards, sounds reasonable as kind of a catch-all
Regards
Felix
> regards, toby
>
> On 12/18/07, Lars Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would prefer simple names over FQ names, but perhaps checking the FQ
> > name first and then the SimpleName would allow us to eliminate all
> > ambiguity.
> >
> > regards,
> >
> > Lars
> >
> > On 18.12.2007, at 13:28, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > On Dec 18, 2007 1:16 PM, Felix Meschberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> ...(1) for status codes:...
> > >
> > > I assume you mean status codes >= 400, right?
> > >
> > > I'm ok with the proposed ScriptOrServlet resolution.
> > >
> > >> ...(2) Likewise for Throwables it would be:
> > >>
> > >> Class<?> tClass = throwable.getClass();
> > >> Servlet s = null;
> > >> while (s == null && tClass != Object.class) {
> > >> s = resolveScriptOrServlet(tClass);,,,
> > >
> > > Shouldn't we use Class.getSimpleName() here?So that scripts are named
> > > MyFunnyException instead of com.nowhere.somepackage.MyFunnyException?
> > >
> > >> tClass = tClass.getSuperclass();
> > >> }
> > >> if (s == null) {
> > >> s = defaultErrorHandlerServlet;
> > >> }...
> > >
> > > Sounds good to me, but we'll have to be careful with exceptions that
> > > occur while looking up exception scripts (I'm kind of noting the
> > > obvious here ;-)
> > >
> > > -Bertrand
> >
> > --
> > Lars Trieloff
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://weblogs.goshaky.com/weblogs/lars
> >
> >
>
>
