Steffen,
Compile, run, and view the output from this program.
I think you'll see the difference :o)
public class Loop{
public static void main(String[] args){
System.out.println("Try-Catch inside loop:");
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++){
try{
System.out.println(String.valueOf(i));
if(i == 5) i = i / 0;
}catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
System.out.println("\nLoop inside try-catch");
try{
for(int i = 0; i < 10; i++){
System.out.println(String.valueOf(i));
if(i == 5) i = i /0;
}
}catch(Exception e){
e.printStackTrace();
}
}
}
On Tue, 2004-10-12 at 13:43, Steffen Heil wrote:
> Hi
>
>
> > The rewritten while{} patch you suggested definitely changed behavior
> significantly, as I and others pointed out ;)
>
> Ãhm, no.
> Sorry to say that, but I think, you didn't review the code for that
> statement:
> One example taken from DefaultServlet.java, lines 2030 to 2054:
>
> IOException exception = null;
> long bytesToRead = end - start + 1;
>
> char buffer[] = new char[input];
> int len = buffer.length;
> while ( (bytesToRead > 0) && (len >= buffer.length)) {
> try {
> len = reader.read(buffer);
> if (bytesToRead >= len) {
> writer.write(buffer, 0, len);
> bytesToRead -= len;
> } else {
> writer.write(buffer, 0, (int) bytesToRead);
> bytesToRead = 0;
> }
> } catch (IOException e) {
> exception = e;
> len = -1;
> }
> if (len < buffer.length)
> break;
> }
>
> return exception;
>
> THIS IS EQUAL TO:
>
> IOException exception = null;
> long bytesToRead = end - start + 1;
>
> char buffer[] = new char[input];
> int len = buffer.length;
> try {
> while ( (bytesToRead > 0) && (len >= buffer.length)) {
> len = reader.read(buffer);
> if (bytesToRead >= len) {
> writer.write(buffer, 0, len);
> bytesToRead -= len;
> } else {
> writer.write(buffer, 0, (int) bytesToRead);
> bytesToRead = 0;
> }
> if (len < buffer.length)
> break;
> }
> } catch (IOException e) {
> exception = e;
> len = -1;
> }
>
> return exception;
>
> OR EVEN:
>
> long bytesToRead = end - start + 1;
>
> char buffer[] = new char[input];
> int len = buffer.length;
> try {
> while ( (bytesToRead > 0) && (len >= buffer.length)) {
> len = reader.read(buffer);
> if (bytesToRead >= len) {
> writer.write(buffer, 0, len);
> bytesToRead -= len;
> } else {
> writer.write(buffer, 0, (int) bytesToRead);
> bytesToRead = 0;
> }
> }
> return null;
> } catch (IOException e) {
> return e;
> }
>
> I am very sure about this.
> And I also do NOT understand, why the exception is reported as result and
> not really thrown.
> The caller always uses:
>
> IOException exception = null;
>
> while ( (exception == null) && (ranges.hasMoreElements()) ) {
>
> ....
> exception = copyRange(istream, ostream, currentRange.start,
> currentRange.end);
> ...
>
> }
>
> ostream.println();
> ostream.print("--" + mimeSeparation + "--");
>
> // Rethrow any exception that has occurred
> if (exception != null)
> throw exception;
>
> Whereas it would absolutely make more sense to me NOT to catch the Exception
> but rather use:
>
> try {
> while ( ranges.hasMoreElements() ) {
>
> ....
> copyRange(istream, ostream, currentRange.start,
> currentRange.end);
> ...
>
> }
> } finally {
> // if nessesary, put code to ensure istream is closed here.
> ostream.println();
> ostream.print("--" + mimeSeparation + "--");
> }
>
> This is what try-finally is all about, isn't it?
>
>
> I agree, that I am new to this and I might be wrong, but this leads me back
> right to where I started. Whom to ask to understand the existing code?
>
>
> > When you're looking at the code, keep in mind that Tomcat's DefaultServlet
> (like virtually every other Tomcat component) can be extended or wrapped.
> Such wrappers or extenders could call getWriter first.
>
> Ok, I forgot about includes and such.
>
> > I'm happy you're looking at the code. If I were in your position (and I
> definitely was, although that seems long ago now ;)), I would look instead
> at Bugzilla, take a bug, and try to fix it.
>
> I will propably do this some time soon. However, right now I am evaluating
> the Default Servlet code because I need to build my customized one and I
> thought a lot of work is already done. Not trying to reinvent the wheel
> though. That's why I am staring at DefaultServlet.java only right now.
>
> Regards,
> Steffen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
