Its this type of discussion that should probably occur on the teleconferences after we've got the first one out of the way.
adam On 22 April 2010 10:23, Bruce Simpson <[email protected]> wrote: > Ben Greear wrote: > ... >> Since you don't even get a useful stack-trace out of the exception >> crashes, and since the attribute decode logic is typically ~20 stack frames >> deep, it's very difficult to debug the cause of the exceptions and to >> figure out where to add appropriate catch() logic. > > Perhaps finishing the backtrace() facility would help. > > I have run into this issue myself on some current work, the trouble is > getting clients to run code out of SVN may still be asking too much-- > although some shops do have enough in-house talent to swing it. > > Our policy of not implementing release branches has worked against us > here, however, that was not a policy I instituted; there just haven't > been enough people working full-time on the code to justify it outside > of the company. > >> Does anyone have any strong attraction to using exceptions, or can >> we move to returning NULL and/or checking an 'is_valid()' flag >> on the attributes instead of throwing lots of exceptions? > > It's how we've always done things, as it's a good use of the language > and helps to cut down on cluttering the code with conditionals. > > +1 for staying with exceptions. > > _______________________________________________ > Xorp-hackers mailing list > [email protected] > http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers > _______________________________________________ Xorp-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.ICSI.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/xorp-hackers
