On May 7, 3:36 pm, "dbahoo***@hotmail.com" <dbahoo***@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> finally someone else sees the fallacy of using XML
>
> On May 7, 5:16 am, "KKS" <kks at synergi dot com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mike Hofer" <kchighl***@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:1178536364.814368.45380@h2g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Just brainstorming here, but let me run this by you. Since I can't
> > > modify the stack trace itself, and since I don't want additional
> > > information in it, what if I used a custom exception class, such as a
> > > ParameterValidtationException, and that class shadowed the StackTrace
> > > property. I could then rewrite the stack trace so that I could fetch
> > > it, remove the extra entries, and then expose the cleaned list to the
> > > end user? Further, I could then extend that class with specific
> > > exception types, if need be, to mimic the standard argument
> > > exceptions.
>
> > > It might have several advantages: most notably, it keeps the stack
> > > trace clean, but it also tells you explicitly that the exception was
> > > thrown by the validation framework. With some optimization, the code
> > > to clean the stack trace can be kept clean, small, and fast.
>
> > > Thoughts?
>
> > Is this really that important? It seems to me now that you creating a lot of
> > work for yourself. Just my opinion.
>
> > Regards
> >  Kjetil- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -