Re: Unifying Exception types in setup

["Max Bowsher" <maxb at ukf dot net>]

Pavel Tsekov wrote:
> Just chaging exit() -> throw Exception won't help much. There should
> be
> an exception handler installed who takes care of processing these
> exceptions i.e. shutdown setup with a simple message describing the
> situation.

Yes, thats the next step.

> If you going to do this I suggest you to dereive a new class from
> exception or Exception, say FatalException. Then install a global
> handler, which catches FatalException and displays a message then
> exits. This way the exit call will be in a single place and not
> scattered throught the code.

All exceptions are fatal if they get to the toplevel.

Unfortunately, we will require multiple toplevel catch blocks: One in each
WndProc and thread initiation routine.

> Btw why do you want to use a single exception type ? IMO, this way you
> defeat the purpose of exceptions to a certain degree. Different
> exceptions should cover different types of errors/events - say
> IOException, CRCExcepion, AuthenticationException.

Makes sense. I'll wait for Robert to explain why setup has 2 different
exception paradigms, and which one can be removed, and if we keep Exception,
whether we can junk appErrNo, and replace it with derived classes as you
suggest.

Max.