On 20/01/2009, Henri Yandell <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 10:53 PM, Jochen Wiedmann > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 7:10 PM, Rahul Akolkar <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 8:24 AM, Jochen Wiedmann > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 4:19 AM, Rahul Akolkar <[email protected]> > 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.
Or better whatever can legitimately be thrown at that point, which is probably only IOException. > Hen > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
