Mailing-List: contact taglibs-user-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: "Tag Libraries Users List" <taglibs-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 08:21:57 -0400 (EDT)
From: Henri Yandell <bayard@generationjava.com>
To: Tag Libraries Users List <taglibs-user@jakarta.apache.org>
Subject: Re: missing if/else syntax (What about catch?)
In-Reply-To: <3EBB9401.9060507@latte.harvard.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0305090813380.9077-100000@umbongo.flamefew.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Fri, 9 May 2003, Mark R. Diggory wrote:

> Henri Yandell wrote:
> > I disagree about the need for a try, it would be redundant unless a
> > finally block was offered. However I agree with the need for catch to have
> > an argument taking an Exception type. I'm not sure if this is planned for
> > JSTL's next version, but I know I mean to add it to unstandard whenever I
> > get around to it.
> >
> > Hen
>
> In defense of my argument, lets run through some examples where one
> could get away without the "try" tag.
>
> In your future "unstandard" case you'd need to wrap the catch tags
> around eachother
>
> <c:catch var="foo" class="foo">
>    <c:catch var="bar" class="bar">
>      <c:catch var="bam" class="bam">
> 	<!-- do something risky -->
>      </c:catch>
>    </c:catch>
> </c:catch>

This is what I imagine in Unstandard. Same concept as JSTL, but with that
additional parameter.

I agree with all of the rest of the points of your email, if someone was
to go further and have a far more Java like concept of executional blocks
of code in the try and catch then I think your taglib would be the way to
go.

URL for your taglib? :)

Hen


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: taglibs-user-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: taglibs-user-help@jakarta.apache.org