Am Fre, 17 Sep 1999 schrieb Roberto Alsina:
> On Fri, 17 Sep 1999, Lotzi Boloni wrote:
> 
> > > > On the other hand, calling a function without catching any possible exceptions
> > > > (in the CORBA way of doing things) is also plain stupid. Catching exceptions,
> > > > even when it does implie a lot of work, at least gives you a chance to
> > > > gracefully respond to such errors.
> > > 
> > > Of course one (ugly) way to do it is wait on bug reports, ask for
> > > tracebacks and *then* catch the exceptions.
> > > 
> > > I'd bet 90% of the exceptions that actually happen would get caught after
> > > a few months in beta :-)
> > 
> >   One of the things you can do in those exception handlers is to bring up
> > a dialog box, and enable to send a mail. A funny automatic processing
> > stuff would be to count the number of exceptions per function calls and
> > then disable those try-s which never sent an exception in the beta
> > process. Hmm...
> 
> I'm not too versed on exceptions, but you can have one super-outer
> exception catch like this:
> 
> try
> {
> 	app.exec();
> }
> catch () ...

This does not help much. I asume you put a try/catch block around the client
apps (for example kword embedding kspread) app.exec() call. Now lets say the
kspread component crashes, a objects becomes nil and a exception is raised. Yes,
the exception is catched, but far to late, you have already left the event loop.
All you can do now is to savely quit kword. -> A bug in the embedded kspread
takes down kword. This does not help much.

I see no other possibility than a try/catch block around every CORBA call.

Greetings, Matthias

--
Matthias Elter
me@kde.org / me@main-echo.net
KDE developer