|
Re: Variant arguments & com function calls: msg#00004windows.devel.jawin
Hi Robert Robert Hastings wrote: We should probably add this to COMException or COMError (Why do we have COMException is a standard Exception, whereas COMError is a runtime error. So I assume the intention with these two, is the standard one for Exception vs. Error: The Errors should normally not be caught by an application, or at least one should have a really good reason to do it. So eg. the new catch-all native errors in the DLL, I implemented yesterday (see the HANDLE_WIN32_EXCEPTIONS-macro in JNIException.h) throws COMErrors. Because if you have code that make Jawin trigger eg. a native ACCESS_VIOLATION, you should only catch and continue if you know what you're doing since the native code could have severely destabilized the JVM. But at least throwing a Java COMError gives the programmer the opportunity to catch it if he wants to. But we could also change to a "RMI" style, where all failures are (as far as I know) subclasses of the RemoteException. Which means the programmer is forced to handle everything?
If this works it should probably be added in the COMException. Best Regards Morten |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Variant arguments & com function calls: 00004, Alex Kotchnev |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: Variant arguments & com function calls: 00004, Morten Andersen |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: Variant arguments & com function callsi: 00004, Robert Hastings |
| Next by Thread: | Re: Variant arguments & com function calls: 00004, Robert Hastings |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |