Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <3A01C7A0.2099E264@eng.sun.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2000 11:59:28 -0800
From: "Craig R. McClanahan" <Craig.McClanahan@eng.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Hello? Anybody?
References: <764CA2FF49EC054BA086FC8253A52DD74331FF@merc09.us.sas.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Larry Isaacs wrote:

> Clarification to text below:
>
> To support this behavior, should the spec require that for a JSP that is
> "included" or "forwarded", handlePageException() is required to propagate
> the exception back to the caller <add> if there is no error page specified
> </add>?
>

How about the case where a top-level JSP page calls PageContext.handlePageException()
with something like a NullPointerException?  It would seem that, even here, you would
want to be consistent with the way a RequestDispatcher works (or a top-level servlet
that throws an exception), and throw this exception on to the container.

We'll see what the expert group has to say.

Craig


>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Larry Isaacs [mailto:Larry.Isaacs@sas.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 2:35 PM
> To: 'tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org'
> Subject: RE: Hello? Anybody?
>
> Thanks Craig,
>
> To support this behavior, should the spec require that for a JSP that is
> "included" or "forwarded", handlePageException() is required to propagate
> the exception back to the caller?  Currently, it just says that if there is
> no error page, it should "perform some implementation dependent action."
> Was the "implementation dependent action" intended only for the original,
> i.e. non-"included" and non-"forwarded", servlet or JSP?
>
> Larry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Craig R. McClanahan [mailto:Craig.McClanahan@eng.sun.com]
> Sent: Thursday, November 02, 2000 1:28 PM
> To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Hello? Anybody?
>
> Ethan Wallwork wrote:
>
> > Since the spec implies that exceptions should be thrown from a
> > RequestDispatcher call rather than handled, and there seems to be nothing in
> > the spec that forbids this behavior, I would like to see it implemented this
> > way.  Does anyone know of any reasons it shouldn't be done this way?
> >
>
> My understanding of the spec is that a ServletException or IOException that is
> thrown by a servlet included (or forwarded to) by a RequestDispatcher should be
> propogated up to the calling servlet.  Any other exception (like
> IllegalStateException, NullPointerException, etc.) that the included/forwarded
> servlet throws should be wrapped in a ServletException, and that exception should
> be thrown.  This is the way 4.0 works.
>
> If 3.2 doesn't do this, IMHO that is a bug.
>
> >
> > --
> > Ethan
> >
>
> Craig McClanahan
>
> [snip]
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: tomcat-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org