exception-handling

问题 Hi so there's a test for a constructor for a vehicle. The test initializes a vehicle with a driver without a driving license and it should throw an Exception. code constructor: public Voertuig(String Merk, Datum datumEersteIngebruikname, int Aankoopprijs, int Zitplaatsen, Mens bestuurder, Mens ... ingezetenen) { this.nummerplaat = div.getNummerplaat(); this.Zitplaatsen = Zitplaatsen; try { this.Merk = Merk; this.datumEersteIngebruikname = datumEersteIngebruikname; this.Aankoopprijs =

问题 First of all, my framework is Java EE 6 with JSF, managed bean, EJB and JPA. I write a simple program to query information from the database. So when I click a button, it trigger an event to a managed bean, where an event listener method will access EJB method. The EJB method will do a simple select query to an Entity. If the database is shutdown before or during the time I select , I get an exception Exception [EclipseLink-4002] (Eclipse Persistence Services - 2.0.1.v20100213-r6600): org

问题 I currently have some code I am trying to refactor. A large set of exceptions has some common code for all exceptions as well as some specific code which needs to be handled separately for each specific exception type. I am trying to figure out how to get rid of the common part in each catch block. One Idea is to do it like this: try { /* Stuff that may fail */ } catch( const std::exception & ) { /* do common part here */ try { throw; } catch( const exception1 & ) { /* do stuff for exception1

问题 I currently have some code I am trying to refactor. A large set of exceptions has some common code for all exceptions as well as some specific code which needs to be handled separately for each specific exception type. I am trying to figure out how to get rid of the common part in each catch block. One Idea is to do it like this: try { /* Stuff that may fail */ } catch( const std::exception & ) { /* do common part here */ try { throw; } catch( const exception1 & ) { /* do stuff for exception1

问题 All, I am trying to ensure that a file I have open with BufferedReader is closed when I catch an IOException, but it appears as if my BufferedReader object is out of scope in the catch block. public static ArrayList readFiletoArrayList(String fileName, ArrayList fileArrayList) { fileArrayList.removeAll(fileArrayList); try { //open the file for reading BufferedReader fileIn = new BufferedReader(new FileReader(fileName)); // add line by line to array list, until end of file is reached // when

问题 This question already has answers here : Null check chain vs catching NullPointerException (19 answers) Avoiding != null statements (63 answers) Closed 2 years ago . I need to check if some value is null or not. And if its not null then just set some variable to true. There is no else statement here. I got too many condition checks like this. Is there any way to handle this null checks without checking all method return values? if(country != null && country.getCity() != null && country

问题 This question already has answers here : Null check chain vs catching NullPointerException (19 answers) Avoiding != null statements (63 answers) Closed 2 years ago . I need to check if some value is null or not. And if its not null then just set some variable to true. There is no else statement here. I got too many condition checks like this. Is there any way to handle this null checks without checking all method return values? if(country != null && country.getCity() != null && country

问题 This question already has answers here : Null check chain vs catching NullPointerException (19 answers) Avoiding != null statements (63 answers) Closed 2 years ago . I need to check if some value is null or not. And if its not null then just set some variable to true. There is no else statement here. I got too many condition checks like this. Is there any way to handle this null checks without checking all method return values? if(country != null && country.getCity() != null && country

问题 just a quick question. Is there any difference between void f(Foo x) try { ... } catch(exception& e) { ... } and void f(Foo x) { try { ... } catch (exception& e) { ... } } ? If no, why are function try blocks for (the case of initialization lists for constructors being put aside) ? What happens if the copy constructor of Foo throws an exception when x is passed to f ? 回答1: Function try blocks are only ever needed in constructors. In all other cases exactly the same effect can be achieved by

问题 I have a simple rails application with a few controller and some rake tasks. A couple of tasks are executed by cron configured with whenever gem. One of my task is executed daily and sometime it raises an exception and by default I receive this warning by cron rake aborted! undefined method `parameterize' for nil:NilClass Tasks: TOP => mailboxes:clean_processed (See full trace by running task with --trace) I want to debug what's happening and for this reason I've just installed this exception