that why i wouldn't check for a exception script at all. since any
exception would result in a 500 that is where the script is then used.
or what other internal errors do you except ?
regards, toby
On 12/18/07, Lars Trieloff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I agree. It is also easier to explain that we walk up the class
> hierarchy up to Throwable, then go to 500.js and then use the default.
> Compare to "We walk up the class hierarchy, but before we actually
> meet Throwable, we use 500.js instead. If this does not work, we use
> the default."
>
> Lars
>
> On 18.12.2007, at 14:26, Felix Meschberger wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
> --
> Lars Trieloff
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://weblogs.goshaky.com/weblogs/lars
>
>
--
-----------------------------------------< [EMAIL PROTECTED] >---
Tobias Bocanegra, Day Management AG, Barfuesserplatz 6, CH - 4001 Basel
T +41 61 226 98 98, F +41 61 226 98 97
-----------------------------------------------< http://www.day.com >---
