Question

I was writing some code, and I notice a pattern in the exception handling that got me thinking:

try{          // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException  } catch (NamingException e) {          log1(e);     rollback();         doSomething(e) } catch (CreateException e) {          log1(e);     rollback();         doSomething(e) } 

Where JMSException would be handle some where up in the stack.

Would it be to just write:

try{          // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException } catch Exception[NamingException, CreateException] e) {          log1(e);     rollback();         doSomething(e) } 

instead of putting it in tu a helper method:

try{          // do stuff... throws JMS, Create and NamingException } catch (NamingException e) {          helper_handleError1(e) } catch (CreateException e) {          helper_handleError1(e) } 

Notice that I want to propagate stacktrace of the original JMSException, and I don’t ‘feel like’ creating an new JMSException with a third catch clause 🙂

Any toughs? Is this an extreme situation that would only pollute the syntax of Java, or just a cool thing to add?

Answer 1

They are considering an extension of this type for Java 7.

See: http://tech.puredanger.com/java7#catch