Am Dienstag, den 18.12.2007, 15:29 +0100 schrieb Tobias Bocanegra:
> 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 ?
Just as you might want to handle status codes differently, you might
want to handle different exceptions differently ...
Regards
Felix
>
> 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
> >
> >
>
>
