Goran,
   Thanks for the comments. If you do have to handle an Exceptions down in
the bowels of your code, is it better to perhaps handle the Exception and
then signal a more general Exception so that code further up can still
detect something has gone wrong?

Russell

> -----Original Message-----
> From: squeak-dev-bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org [mailto:squeak-dev-
> bounces at lists.squeakfoundation.org] On Behalf Of goran.krampe at bluefish.se
> Sent: Thursday, 4 November 2004 11:58 PM
> To: The general-purpose Squeak developers list
> Subject: RE: [ANN] Cleaned up KomHttpServer on SM
> 
> Hi!
> 
> "Russell Penney" <russell.penney at tincanct.com> wrote:
> > > 2. Dug deep to find a little bug in the HttpRequest parsing that dear
> > > Brent mistakenly introduced :) and fixed it. Funky enough we don't
> want
> > > exceptions down there - they are swallowed hard.
> >
> > Just to get completely of topic, why are exceptions bad "down there" and
> > what does "swallowed hard" mean?
> 
> Well, they are "bad" to get down there because it was inside a handler
> that swallowed it. Swallowed meaning that the handler simply gave the
> exception the silent treatment. :)
> 
> But the method comment tries to explan why - I haven't analyzed this in
> depth. But as it stands - if there is an exception in say the
> HttpRequest parsing it will be silently swallowed today.
> 
> > I only ask because I am playing with Exceptions and would like the
> benefit
> > of people's views and experience.
> 
> Well, the lesson here is - don't swallow exceptions. The code in
> question may have a good reason for it - but generally it pisses
> developers off to a vast extent. ;)
> 
> In this case I had to throw in self halts DEEP down in the listen loop
> and step forward in the debugger to find the place where it went wrong.
> 
> > Russell
> 
> regards, Göran