 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Java Forum / General / March 2007How can i automatically find all unhandled exceptions in my java code?
see subj, Thanks. > see subj, > Thanks. See sig.  SignatureEric Sosman esosman@acm-dot-org.invalid Read the error messages from javac. >>see subj, >See sig. See »X-Readme« header. > >>see subj, > >See sig. > > See >X-Readme< header. What did you mean ? upsa schreef: >>>> see subj, >>> See sig. >> See >X-Readme< header. > > What did you mean ? He meant that you should see the X-Readme header. Do a search for ‘email headers’. H. SignatureHendrik Maryns http://tcl.sfs.uni-tuebingen.de/~hendrik/ ================== http://aouw.org Ask smart questions, get good answers: http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html Hi, >>>>>see subj, >>>>See sig. >>> See >X-Readme< header. >>What did you mean ? > He meant that you should see the X-Readme header. Do a search for > ‘email headers’. OMG (=Oh my god)! What kind of nerd humor is it to express onself intentionally baffling and not even respond in an understandable way if the OP exlicitely asks for it? (IMHO it is the same kind of behaviour that we nerds make fun of if e.g. a manager or salesman does so). To upsa: Eric meant: "Read the error messages from javac." Stefan meant: "But wouldn't this apply only to the checked exceptions, not to runtime exceptions." Ciao, Ingo > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > for it? (IMHO it is the same kind of behaviour that we nerds make fun of > if e.g. a manager or salesman does so). They are chastising/needling the OP in a round-about way for not putting the question where it is most important to have it: the message body. > To upsa: > Eric meant: "Read the error messages from javac." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ciao, > Ingo Hi, > They are chastising/needling the OP in a round-about way for not putting > the question where it is most important to have it: the message body. I think the question (short and exact) is put perfectly where it should be - in the subject. Of course, one could argue about if it would be a good idea to copy&paste to the body. (Although I do not think that it is worth arguing about that.) Having said this: If they have the oppinion that the OP should put the question in the message body, they should say that - especially when he asks for explaining what they meant. I don't think that the OP can read their minds. He will only think "What ... nerds!" Ciao, Ingo > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I think the question (short and exact) is put perfectly where it should > be - in the subject. It's just netiquette, I believe, that you should always have a containing actual content rather than an empty one or one that says "see subject". > Of course, one could argue about if it would be a > good idea to copy&paste to the body. (Although I do not think that it is > worth arguing about that.) A succinct and direct question is good as a subject line. Personally I think it should be pasted as the body too, even if it is only the same content as the subject line. > Having said this: If they have the oppinion that the OP should put the > question in the message body, they should say that - especially when he > asks for explaining what they meant. I don't think that the OP can read > their minds. He will only think "What ... nerds!" It would be more helpful to have done that, yes. >>> They are chastising/needling the OP in a round-about way for not >>> putting the question where it is most important to have it: the >>> message body. Ingo R. Homann wrote: >> Having said this: If they have the oppinion that the OP should put the >> question in the message body, they should say that - especially when >> he asks for explaining what they meant. I don't think that the OP can >> read their minds. He will only think "What ... nerds!" > It would be more helpful to have done that, yes. But far less clever. And needling does not violate netiquette. And when the OP rises to the level where they appreciate the needling, then they will have transformed more than if they were given the easy way. -- Lew >>>see subj, >>See sig. > > See »X-Readme« header. (I wonder if this reply post will replicate your X-Readme header or not -- I suspect not) Right, as Stefan says, Eric's solution of reading the javac error messages would only apply to checked exceptions. To handled unchecked exceptions, you might be able to do a bit of static analysis on the source code, but I suspect that in general the problem is insoluble. For example, what if you write a ClassLoader which generates random (but legal) bytecode? It may generate code which throws a runtime exception without declaring so in the method header, and you'd have a tough time "finding" this unhandled exception (how would you define "find" in this case?) via static analysis. - Oliver Hi, >> see subj, >> Thanks. > See sig. The problem is that you do not get uncaught RuntimeExceptions as Stefan more or less mentioned. So, IMHO the correct answer would be: "Read the error messages from javac and catch RuntimeExceptions in your main-method." Ciao, Ingo > > see subj, > > Thanks. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > esos...@acm-dot-org.invalid > Read the error messages from javac. I wasn't able to understand automatically. Next time I suggest you shall write some content in main message even if it is same as the title. Free MagazinesGet these publications absolutely FREE for up to 12 months. There are no hidden fees and no obligation. Simply choose a title, complete the application form and submit it. Read more ...
|
Reply to this Message
|
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.