On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 5:25 AM, sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
<snip/>
And SecurityException.
-Rahul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
