3 ms·

> All you need to know is what errors you can handle and where in the code you can handle them. Surely also what errors can occur. Can the network using librar

by IanCal 8y ago

> All you need to know is what errors you can handle and where in the code you can handle them. Surely also what errors can occur. Can the network using library throw disk IO errors? Permissions errors? Maybe it handles all the network errors internally to the library and I don't need to deal with those at all.

wvenable 8y ago
How do you handle those other errors though? If there is a disk I/O error, you're basically done. Permission errors, same thing. You report, abort, maybe retry. You don't really need to know in the specific what kinds of errors can occur. If it's possible to recover from an exceptional situation, it's only useful to know if that situation is possible so you can avoid writing code you don't need to. But there wouldn't be any harm in writing an exception handler for an exception that can't happen except for that wasted effort.
- IanCal 8y ago
  Well it depends on what I'm doing and why the errors might be thrown right? Is it something I can let the user retry if they know what's happening (e.g. IO error because the output folder doesn't exist)? Whether I retry on network errors can depend on what the error is - if the end service is responding saying my call is invalid for certain reasons there can be a good case to just die immediately rather than slowly backing off trying repeatedly in vain. The flip side of this is I shouldn't need to worry about exceptions that cannot be thrown. When you say all you need to know is what you can handle and where, that list must be a subset of the possible list of things that can be thrown. There's no point worrying about whether I should be retrying something due to network faults if it never uses the network to begin with.
  - wvenable 8y ago
    I think of this way; there are broad categories of exceptions that you can handle and specific exceptions. But those exceptions are significantly smaller than the set of all possible exceptions my code (and the framework code) can trigger. I shouldn't have to worry about every possible exception, just ones I can handle. Checked exceptions/errors means you have to deal with the minutiae. For your example if retrying network, I prefer to simply have a "ShouldRetry" property/interface on the exception itself since the triggering code has the best knowledge of how it should be handled. No need to know every possible network exception and sort them into retry or not retry. > Is it something I can let the user retry if they know what's happening (e.g. IO error because the output folder doesn't exist)? My favorite error handling is when you can just put a single handler at the event-loop of a UI based project. On exception you just show them the message and continue running. The stack unwinding code ensures the application maintains correct state and that the operation is unwound. If the user clicked "save" and a failure occurred they get the message and can retry if they want.

by IanCal 8y ago

wvenable 8y ago

How do you handle those other errors though? If there is a disk I/O error, you're basically done. Permission errors, same thing. You report, abort, maybe retry. You don't really need to know in the specific what kinds of errors can occur. If it's possible to recover from an exceptional situation, it's only useful to know if that situation is possible so you can avoid writing code you don't need to. But there wouldn't be any harm in writing an exception handler for an exception that can't happen except for that wasted effort.

IanCal 8y ago
Well it depends on what I'm doing and why the errors might be thrown right? Is it something I can let the user retry if they know what's happening (e.g. IO error because the output folder doesn't exist)? Whether I retry on network errors can depend on what the error is - if the end service is responding saying my call is invalid for certain reasons there can be a good case to just die immediately rather than slowly backing off trying repeatedly in vain. The flip side of this is I shouldn't need to worry about exceptions that cannot be thrown. When you say all you need to know is what you can handle and where, that list must be a subset of the possible list of things that can be thrown. There's no point worrying about whether I should be retrying something due to network faults if it never uses the network to begin with.
- wvenable 8y ago
  I think of this way; there are broad categories of exceptions that you can handle and specific exceptions. But those exceptions are significantly smaller than the set of all possible exceptions my code (and the framework code) can trigger. I shouldn't have to worry about every possible exception, just ones I can handle. Checked exceptions/errors means you have to deal with the minutiae. For your example if retrying network, I prefer to simply have a "ShouldRetry" property/interface on the exception itself since the triggering code has the best knowledge of how it should be handled. No need to know every possible network exception and sort them into retry or not retry. > Is it something I can let the user retry if they know what's happening (e.g. IO error because the output folder doesn't exist)? My favorite error handling is when you can just put a single handler at the event-loop of a UI based project. On exception you just show them the message and continue running. The stack unwinding code ensures the application maintains correct state and that the operation is unwound. If the user clicked "save" and a failure occurred they get the message and can retry if they want.