Re: Test or NullPointerException catch
- From: "Larry Barowski" <MElarrybar-AT-eng_DOT_auburnANOTHERDOTeduEND>
- Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 12:49:41 -0500
"Wendy S" <wendywds@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:jzSie.17$8p.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Larry Barowski" <MElarrybar-AT-eng_DOT_auburnANOTHERDOTeduEND> wrote
>
> > Normally you should only catch checked exceptions.
> > Imagine there is a bug in that code, let's say an extremely
> > rare one, that throws a NPE. You would just catch and
> > ignore it, so you might not even be able to notice the bug
> > unless you determine that the data was not being processed
> > correctly.
>
> I agree that in general you shouldn't catch unchecked exceptions, but
since
> when does catching an exception automatically mean ignoring it?
It means ignoring or mis-handling other unexpected
exceptions caused by bugs. That is fairly clear in my
statement above.
.
- References:
- Test or NullPointerException catch
- From: GuyBrush Treepwood
- Re: Test or NullPointerException catch
- From: Larry Barowski
- Re: Test or NullPointerException catch
- From: Wendy S
- Test or NullPointerException catch
- Prev by Date: Re: JUnit problem with Eclipse3.1M7
- Next by Date: Re: Direct ByteBuffer advantage?
- Previous by thread: Re: Test or NullPointerException catch
- Next by thread: Re: Test or NullPointerException catch
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|