From: E. Gladyshev (eegg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-05-29 13:48:22
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andreas Huber" <ah2003_at_[hidden]>
> E. Gladyshev wrote:
> > After thinking about your solution a bit more,
> > I don't think that it is generic enough.
> >
> > Your solution
> >
> > try{...}
> > catch(...)
> > {
> > try { throw; }
> > catch( type1 ) { ... }
> > }
> >
> > is very different from
> >
> > try{...}
> > catch( type1 ) {...}
> >
> > One of the differences is that in the first case, the stack unwinding
> > will
> > be
> > triggered for any exception. In the second case, it is not
> > necessarily the case.
>
> This only applies to exceptions that will ultimately end up as unhandled
and
> are never caught an rethrown inbetween, right? For all other exceptions it
> should not make a difference?
Right.
So I was arguing that such a solution is not generic enough.
I think that fsm should at the very least allow you to disable catch(...)
and let unhandled exceptions go unhandled.
Is ExceptionTranslator the best place to do that?
Eugene