On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:25 AM, sebb <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > <snip/>
And SecurityException. -Rahul --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
