15 Jan
2016
15 Jan
'16
10:38 a.m.
On 15 Jan 2016 at 10:34:58, Thomas Mortagne
(thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
On Fri, Jan 15, 2016 at 9:18 AM, vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
That’s a good point, I had not thought about the implementation at this stage.
I think this could still work. When the #try directive is used I’d just have to setup some
flag somewhere in Velocity and in the uberspector I could check if this flag is set and if
so then don’t catch the exception.
Thanks
-Vincent
On 15 Jan 2016 at 07:24:35, Marius Dumitru Florea
(mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote:
Does it mean you plan to get rid of new #try directive ? Because it
will be broken with this new uberspector. On Thu, Jan 14, 2016 at 6:51 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net
wrote:
Yes, I should have mentioned that there’s indeed also this possibility:
* Have script API throw Exceptions
* Force velocity script users to wrap their code with the try directive when they need to
catch exceptions
I still believe that the use of the Exception-catching uberspector is better.
WDYT? Hi devs,
Right now our strategy is for script services and script APIs in general
to catch exceptions, store them and offer a getLastError() method to get
them (see
http://extensions.xwiki.org/xwiki/bin/view/Extension/Script+Module#HBestPra…
)
However it would be much nicer to:
* Let our script services generate exceptions
* Offer a velocity script service to get the last exception raised by a
java call from velocity
* Implement this uberspector to catch the exceptions and to set them in
the execution context
That should be quite easy to implement IMO.
WDYT?
+1, it's a pain to call setLastError() everywhere there can be an exception
thrown, and we almost always forget to do it (for this reason).
Note that we also have the #try() directive now. > Thanks
> -Vincent
>
>> Thanks,
>> Marius
>>
>>
>> >
>> > Thanks
>> > -Vincent
>> >
>> > PS: This is http://jira.xwiki.org/browse/XWIKI-2374