On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Jochen Wiedmann
<jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jochen Wiedmann
>> <jochen.wiedm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Rahul Akolkar <rahul.akol...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> + } finally {
>>>>> + if (!successful) {
>>>>> + for (Iterator iterator = items.iterator();
>>>>> iterator.hasNext();) {
>>>>> + FileItem fileItem = (FileItem) iterator.next();
>>>>> + try {
>>>>> + fileItem.delete();
>>>>> + } catch (Throwable e) {
>>>>> + // ignore it
>>>>> + }
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Catch the bits that makes sense to ignore here?
>>>
>>> Don't know, whether I understand your question right, Rahul.
>> <snip/>
>>
>> Similar to SCXML-103 [1] -- the above may be flagged for the same reason.
>
> I have read that bug and I disagree with the conclusion. I always
> would want to see the first exception and not prioritize them.
Ignoring the ignoring :) Is there any excuse for catching Throwable?
As opposed to RuntimeException.
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
