On 20/01/2009, Henri Yandell <flame...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Or better whatever can legitimately be thrown at that point, which is
probably only IOException.
> Hen
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
