From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 7023 invoked by alias); 15 Nov 2007 18:19:14 -0000 Received: (qmail 7010 invoked by uid 22791); 15 Nov 2007 18:19:12 -0000 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.3 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DK_POLICY_SIGNSOME,FORGED_RCVD_HELO,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS,TW_FH X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:19:09 +0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAFIJ7Q6005896 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:19:07 -0500 Received: from pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (pobox-2.corp.redhat.com [10.11.255.15]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAFIJ76v016726 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:19:07 -0500 Received: from localhost.localdomain (vpn-6-16.fab.redhat.com [10.33.6.16]) by pobox-2.corp.redhat.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id lAFIJ6qk025672 for ; Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:19:06 -0500 Message-ID: <473C8D99.4060107@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 18:19:00 -0000 From: Phil Muldoon User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (X11/20070926) MIME-Version: 1.0 CC: frysk@sourceware.org Subject: Re: fhpd vs RuntimeExceptions References: <1195050364.3027.24.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> <473C7B74.6090109@redhat.com> <1195148516.3010.27.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> In-Reply-To: <1195148516.3010.27.camel@dijkstra.wildebeest.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact frysk-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: frysk-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2007-q4/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 Mark Wielaard wrote: > Hi Phil, > > On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 17:01 +0000, Phil Muldoon wrote: > >> As talked about on IRC over the corefile >> message design, exceptions can and are used to carry warnings, messages >> and so on. How do you differentiate between a warning and an error in >> this case? >> > > By using different exception types, so a higher level can distinquish > between a "recoverable" warning and a "unrecoverable" error. > Like I mentioned in reply to Sami's email yesterday, having a napi throw several different unchecked exception types places a huge and unfair burden on the user to know the code beyond the api. The places "must be an expert on Frysk to call Frysk apis" charge at our feet. > Yes, I think that is the way forward. Something terribly failed. And > just passing the "address 6992f8 cannot be found in metadata table." > message to the user is clearly not very helpful if the user just wanted > to run a specific command. What would be helpful here? It's a message, not an error? Basically it just means cannot read the address here as we don't know how to read it. I can format the message however I want, but it is still not an error message. However it sure looks like one now ;) > Only the command knows if this is something > fatal or not and should catch it at the appropriate level and report > what the exact action was that was attempted and which structure > couldn't be created because of the error. > No in the my case. Corecommand is just there to bootstrap a corefile into fhpd and report back any messages and/or errors it receives. Regards Phil