- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:24:49 +0100
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 00:51:54 +0200, Olav Junker Kj?r <olav at olav.dk> wrote: > Jim Ley wrote: > > The next is to require ECMAScript Ed.3 (or potentially just the > > limited version for mobiles) this will give everyone try/catch > > abilities so you won't need to worry about onerror, this I certainly > > think would be sensible. > > The problem is if you want to have a global catch-all error handling, > e.g. because you want to post an error report back to the server and > show a custom error message for the user. To what end? you can't reliably post back a message in result of a script error - so there's no way the server can know of one (this should be obvious of course since the script could error again in whatever mechanism you used to post back to the server), equally showing a custom message will never be reliable (although of course it's more reliable that posting back to server) Structured error handling is a much more sensible approach than blinding putting all errors into an onerror element. > Since there is no "main" function in a webapp, you need a try-catch in > every script block and event handler. Indeed, you see this as a problem? You certainly can't do graceful degradation of your scripts without this... >This is not very clean. Also, > errors may be generated from other sources than javascript, e.g. if a > script or img does not load correctly. Ah sorry, you're discussing the two sorts of onerror events (the window and img object ones) I wasn't talking about the img one at all, certainly that could be specified usefully, the script one however I do not think is useful as defined backwards compatibly. Jim.
Received on Sunday, 29 August 2004 16:24:49 UTC