----- Original Message ----- From: "Andreas Huber" <ah2003@gmx.net>
E. Gladyshev wrote:
After thinking about your solution a bit more, I don't think that it is generic enough.
Your solution
try{...} catch(...) { try { throw; } catch( type1 ) { ... } }
is very different from
try{...} catch( type1 ) {...}
One of the differences is that in the first case, the stack unwinding will be triggered for any exception. In the second case, it is not necessarily the case.
This only applies to exceptions that will ultimately end up as unhandled and are never caught an rethrown inbetween, right? For all other exceptions it should not make a difference?
Right. So I was arguing that such a solution is not generic enough. I think that fsm should at the very least allow you to disable catch(...) and let unhandled exceptions go unhandled. Is ExceptionTranslator the best place to do that? Eugene