Re: Allowing Applications to continue after exception...

[David Ayers]

Hello Gregory,

Am Freitag, den 06.02.2009, 00:33 -0500 schrieb Gregory Casamento:
> What should "NSExceptionMask" be implemented as?  SHould it be a
> boolean that determines if we should allow the application to continue
> or not?

Did you read the link that Richard provided?
http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Conceptual/Exceptions/Exceptions.html
http://developer.apple.com/DOCUMENTATION/Cocoa/Conceptual/Exceptions/Tasks/ControllingAppResponse.html

Table 1  Exception-handling constants and defaults values:
Type of Action / Constant / Value for defaults
----------------------------------------------
Log uncaught NSExceptions / NSLogUncaughtExceptionMask / 1
Handle uncaught NSExceptions / NSHandleUncaughtExceptionMask / 2
Log system-level exceptions / NSLogUncaughtSystemExceptionMask / 4
Handle system-level exceptions / NSHandleUncaughtSystemExceptionMask / 8
Log runtime errors / NSLogUncaughtRuntimeErrorMask / 16
Handle runtime errors / NSHandleUncaughtRuntimeErrorMask / 32

> That is to say 
> * NSExceptionMask = YES  - report all exceptions, but continue
> anyway...
> * NSExceptionMask = NO - current behavior

That would be a GNUstep extension and in my view more confusing than the
current behavior.

> If so, I have a patch almost ready.  I'll submit it to the group prior
> to committing it since a change that is this important needs to have
> some amount of consensus.

That's good.

Yet I must admit that I find it a bit unsettling that DBModeler (who's
eomodeld files are comparatively trivial) may abort while GORM (who's
gorm/nib files contain very complex relationships) my silently corrupt
it's files due to bugs in third party palettes.

I just want you to consider this very carefully with respect to the
default setting of GORM.

Cheers,
David