My ejb3 application running on JBOSS6 already has a customized Exception handler "Ejbexception.java" which extends Exception class
I want to use the same to trap Exceptions with some number and send back the same to the Client Code for handling gentel message .
ex:
try{
.....
}catch(SQLException ex){
throw new EjbException("1001");
}
Now HOWto get the "1001" on the Client Code ?????
thx in advance
karthik
Did you write this Ejbexception class yourself? If so, that's a poor choice of name, because there's already a javax.ejb.EJBException in the library. However, it will work: when you throw it, the container will transport it to the client, who can then catch it. The string you inserted will be available from the exception's getMessage() method, just like normal.
If you're actually throwing a javax.ejb.EJBException here, then things are slightly different. That exception is aimed at the container, not the client. I actually don't know how it's made visible to the client. My suggestion would be to switch to using a custom exception, which the container will then pass to the client.
Related
Consider the following service (transactional by default). A player must always have one account. A player without at least one corresponding account is an error state.
class playerService {
def createPlayer() {
Player p new Player(name: "Stephen King")
if (!p.save()) {
return [code: -1, errors:p.errors]
}
Account a = new Account(type: "cash")
if (!a.save()) {
// rollback p !
return [code: -2, errors:a.errors]
}
// commit only now!
return [code: 0, player:p]
}
}
I have seen this pattern by experienced grails developers, and when I tell them that if creation of the account of the player fails for any reason, it wont rollback the player, and will leave the DB in an invalid state, they look at me like I am mad because grails handles rolling back the player because services are transactional right?
So then, being a SQL guy, I look for a way to call rollback in grails. There isn't one. According to various posts, there are only 2 ways to force grails to rollback in a service:
throw an unchecked exception. You know what this is right?
don't use service methods or transactional annotations, use this construct:
.
DomainObject.withTransaction {status ->
//stuff
if (someError) {
status.setRollbackOnly()
}
}
1. throw an unchecked exception
1.1 So we must throw runtime exceptions to rollback. This is ok for me (I like exceptions), but this wont gel with the grails developers we have who view exceptions as a throwback to Java and is uncool. It also means we have to change the whole way the app currently uses its service layer.
1.2 If an exception is thrown, you lose the p.errors - you lose the validation detail.
1.3 Our new grails devs don't know the difference between an unchecked and an checked exception, and don't know how to tell the difference. This is really dangerous.
1.4. use .save(failOnError: true)
I am a big fan of using this, but its not appropriate everywhere. Sometimes you need to check the reason before going further, not throw an exception. Are the exceptions it can generate always checked, always unchecked, or either? I.e. will failOnError AWLAYS rollback, no matter what the cause? No one I have asked knows the answer to this, which is disturbing, they are using blind faith to avoid corrupted/inconsistent DBs.
1.5 What happens if a controller calls service A, which calls Service B, then service C. Service A must catch any exception and return a nicely formatted return value to the controller. If Service C throws an exception, which is caught by Service A, will service Bs transactions be rolled back? This is critical to know to be able to construct a working application.
UPDATE 1:
Having done some tests, it appears that any runtime exception, even if thrown and caught in some unrelated child calls, will cause everything in the parent to rollback. However, it is not easy to know in the parent session that this rollback has happened - you need to make sure that if you catch any exception, you either rethrow, or pass some notice back to the caller to show that it has failed in such a way that everything else will be rolled back.
2. withTransaction
2.1 This seems a bazaar construct. How do I call this, and what do I pass in for the "status" parameter? What is "setRollbackOnly" exactly. Why is it not just called "rollback". What is the "Only" part? It is tied to a domain object, when your method may want to do update several different domain objects.
2.2 Where are you supposed to put this code? In with the DomainObject class? In the source folder (i.e. not in a service or controller?)? Directly in the controller? (we don't want to duplicate business logic in the controllers)
3. Ideal situation.
3.1 The general case is we want every thing we do in a service method to roll back if anything in that service method cant be saved for any reason, or throws any exception for any reason (checked or unchecked).
3.2 Ideally I would like service methods to "always rollback, unless I explicitly call commit", which is the safest strategy , but this is not possible I believe.
The question is how do I achieve the ideal situation?
Will calling save(failOnError:true) ALWAYS rollback everything, no matter what the reason for failing? This is not perfect, as it is not easy for the caller to know which domain object save caused the issue.
Or do people define lots of exception classes which subclass runtimeException, then explicit catch each of them in the controller to create the appropriate response? This is the old Java way, and our groovy devs pooh pooh this approach due to the amount of boiler plate code we will have to write.
What methods do people use to achieve this?
I wouldn't call myself an expert, and this question is over a year old, but I can answer some of these questions, if only for future searchers. I'm just now refactoring some controllers to use services in order to take advantage of transactions.
I have seen this pattern by experienced grails developers, and when I tell them that if creation of the account of the player fails for any reason, it wont rollback the player, and will leave the DB in an invalid state, they look at me like I am mad because grails handles rolling back the player because services are transactional right?
I'm not seeing in the documentation where it explicitly states that returning from a service method does not rollback the transaction, but I can't imagine that this would be a very sane behavior. Still, testing is an easy way to prove yourself.
1.2 If an exception is thrown, you lose the p.errors - you lose the validation detail.
Since you're the one throwing the exception, you can throw the errors along with it. For instance:
// in service
if (!email.save()) {
throw new ValidationException("Couldn't save email ${params.id}", email.errors)
}
When you catch the exception, you reload the instance (because throwing an exception clears the session), put the errors back into the instance, and then pass that to the view as usual:
// in controller
} catch (ValidationException e) {
def email = Email.read(id)
email.errors = e.errors
render view: "edit", model: [emailInstance: email]
}
This is discussed under the heading "Validation Errors and Rollback", down the page from http://grails.github.io/grails-doc/2.4.4/guide/single.html#transactionsRollbackAndTheSession.
1.4. use .save(failOnError: true) I am a big fan of using this, but its not appropriate everywhere. Sometimes you need to check the reason before going further, not throw an exception. Are the exceptions it can generate always checked, always unchecked, or either? I.e. will failOnError AWLAYS rollback, no matter what the cause? No one I have asked knows the answer to this, which is disturbing, they are using blind faith to avoid corrupted/inconsistent DBs.
failOnError will cause save() to throw a ValidationException, so yes, if you're in a transaction and aren't checking that exception, the transaction will be rolled back.
Generally speaking, it seems to be un-"Grailsy" to use failOnError a lot, probably for the reasons you listed (e.g., lack of control). Instead, you check whether save() failed (if (!save()) ...), and take action based on that.
withTransaction
I'm not sure the point of this, because SpringSource really encourages the use of services for everything. I personally don't like it, either.
If you want to make a particular service non-transactional, and then make one method of it transactional, you can just annotate that one method with #Transactional (unless your developers also dislike annotations because they're too "Java" ;) ).
Note! As soon as you mark a single method with #Transactional, the overall service will become non-transactional.
3.1 The general case is we want every thing we do in a service method to roll back if anything in that service method cant be saved for any reason, or throws any exception for any reason (checked or unchecked).
I feel like checked exceptions are generally considered not "Groovy" (which also makes them not Grails-y). Not sure about the reason for that.
However, it looks like you can tell your service to rollback on your checked exceptions, by listing them in the rollbackFor option to #Transactional.
Or do people define lots of exception classes which subclass runtimeException, then explicit catch each of them in the controller to create the appropriate response? This is the old Java way, and our groovy devs pooh pooh this approach due to the amount of boiler plate code we will have to write.
The nice thing about Groovy is that you can write your boiler plate once and then call it repeatedly. A pattern I've seen a lot, and am currently using, is something like this:
private void validate(Long id, Closure closure) {
try {
closure()
} catch (ValidationException e) {
def email = Email.read(id)
email.errors = e.errors
render view: "edit", model: [emailInstance: email]
} catch (OtherException e) {
def email = Email.read(id)
flash.error = "${e.message}: ${e.reasons}"
render view: "show", model: [emailInstance: email]
} catch (Throwable t) {
flash.error = "Unexpected error $t: ${t.message}"
redirect action: "list"
}
}
And then call it in each controller action like so:
def update(Long id, Long version) {
withInstance(id, version) { Email emailInstance ->
validate(emailInstance.id) {
emailService.update(emailInstance, params)
flash.message = "Email $id updated at ${new Date()}."
redirect action: "show", id: emailInstance.id
}
}
}
(withInstance is another similar method that DRYs up the check for existence and optimistic locking.)
This approach has downsides. You get the same set of redirects in every action; you probably want to write one set of methods for each controller; and it seems kind of silly to pass a closure into a method and expect the method to know what exceptions the closure will throw. But hey, programming's all about tradeoffs, right?
Anyway, hope that is at least interesting.
If you have a service such as:
In a Grails 2 app, the recommended way would be to use transactionStatus.setRollbackOnly().
import grails.transaction.Transactional
Class RoleService {
#Transactional
Role save(String authority) {
Role roleInstance = new Role(authority: authority)
if ( !roleInstance.save() ) {
// log errors here
transactionStatus.setRollbackOnly()
}
roleInstance
}
}
See: https://github.com/grails/grails-core/issues/9212
In the EFContextProvider (EF6) SaveChangesCore method, the exception handling looks like this:
} catch (Exception e) {
while (e.InnerException != null) {
e = e.InnerException;
}
throw e;
}
This throws only the most internal exception and hides the relevant information revealed by the external exceptions.
When the SaveChanges process goes through multiple layers the next direct layer exception is lost, and only the last exception in the chain is thrown. It doesn't allow to handle well the exceptions for the caller.
Updated Post
As of Breeze 1.4.6, any .NET Exceptions thrown on the server are now available in their original form in the httpResponse.data property of any async breeze result. Breeze will still drill down to extract a "good" error message, but will no longer obscure the initial exception.
Original Post Below -------------------
It's an interesting point. The reason we did this was because most client side apps aren't written to navigate thru the exception chain and we wanted to expose the most 'relevant' error to the client. Most of the apps we looked at just exposed the client "error.message" property directly and with EF errors this was almost always useless.
However, your point is well taken. I think what we need to do is create a new Exception that has a top level message that is the innermost exception message but still expose the entire exception chain for those that want to drill. I've added an internal feature request for this and will try to get it into a near term release ( probably not the next one because we are already in testing for that one).
And thanks for the input.
I'm making from client different ajax calls to web methods in my page. Some of the methods will throw in some cases exceptions. I want to be able to show the message of the exception to the user.
I have found that I can use "<customerrors mode= Off>" but also this approach How to return custom exception message to Ajax call?
The second one seems like a lot of extra coding in JS, but I don't know if the first is acceptable in a production environment.
Could you please advice me on this!
Thank you.
EDIT: Example: I'm adding a new user and validation in my DB says it is already there, I want to be able to show the message in a div/span/label (in a jquery dialog) but in the same page and without page postback.
Create One Error.aspx page and write the following code in global.asax code file.
void Application_Error(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// Code that runs when an unhandled error occurs
string ErrorMessage = Server.GetLastError().ToString();
Session[ErrorMessage] = ErrorMessage;
Server.ClearError();
Response.Redirect("~/Error.aspx");
}
Write Session[ErrorMessage] on your Error.aspx page.
You will get exception message whenever exception occur in web application and it will show on Error.aspx page.
I found questions here Should a retrieval method return 'null' or throw an exception when it can't produce the return value? and Should functions return null or an empty object?, but I think my case is quite different.
I'm writing an application that consists of a webservice and a client. The webservice is responsible to access data, and return data to the client. I design my app like this:
//webservice
try
{
DataTable data = GetSomeData(parameter);
return data
}
catch (OopsException ex)
{
//write some log here
return null;
}
//client:
DataTable data = CallGetSomeData(parameter);
if(data == null)
{
MessageBox.Show("Oops Exception!");
return;
}
Well, there is a rule of not returning null. I don't think that I should just rethrow an exception and let the client catch SoapException. What's your comment? Is there better approach to solve this problem?
Thank you.
In your case, an exception has already been thrown and handled in some manner in your web service.
Returning null there is a good idea because the client code can know that something errored out in your web service.
In the case of the client, I think the way you have it is good. I don't think there is a reason to throw another exception (even though you aren't in the web service anymore).
I say this, because, technically, nothing has caused an error in your client code. You are just getting bad data from the web service. This is just a matter of handling potentially bad input from an outside source.
Personally, as a rule of thumb, I shy away from throwing exceptions when I get bad data since the client code can't control that.
Just make sure you handle the data == null condition in such a way that it doesn't crash your client code.
In general i try to design my webservices in such way that they return a flag of some sort that indicates whether there was a technical/functional error or not.
additionally i try to return a complex object for result not just a string, so that i can return things like:
result->Code = "MAINTENANCE"
result->MaintenanceTill = "2010-10-29 14:00:00"
so for a webservice that should get me a list of dataEntities i will return something like:
<result>
<result>
<Code>OK</Code>
</result>
<functionalResult>
<dataList>
<dataEntity>A</dataEntity>
</dataList>
</functionalResult>
</result>
so every failure that can occur behind my webservice is hidden in a error result.
the only exceptions that developers must care about while calling my webservice are the exceptions or errors that can occur before the webservice.
All the WebServices that I've used return objects, not simple data types. These objects usually contain a bool value named Success that lets you test very quickly whether or not to trust the data returned. In either event, I think any errors thrown should be untrappable (i.e. unintentional) and therefore signify a problem with the service itself.
I think there may be a few factors to consider when making a decision:
what is the idiomatic way to do this in the language your using (if it wasn't a webservice)
how good your soap/webservice library is (does it propogate exceptions or no)
what's the easiest thing for the client to do
I tend to make the client do the easiest, idiomatic thing, within the limitations of the library. If the client lib doesn't take care of auto restoring serialized exceptions I would probably wrap it with a lib that did so I could do the following.
Client:
try:
# Restore Serialized object, rethrow if exception
return CallGetSomeData(parameter);
except Timeout, e:
MessageBox.Show("timed out")
except Exception, e:
MessageBox.Show("Unknown error")
exit(1)
WebService:
try:
return GetSomeData(parameter) # Serialized
except Exception, e:
return e # Serialized
Your first problem is "a rule of not returning null". I would strongly suggest reconsidering that.
Returning a SoapException is a possibility, but like hacktick already mentioned, it would be better to return a complex object with a status flag {Success,Fail} with every response from the web service.
I think it all boils down to the question whether or not your client can use any info as to why no data was returned.
For example - if no data was returned because the (say sql) server that is called in GetSomeData was down, and the client can actually do something with that information (e.g. display an appropriate message) - you don't want to hide that information - throwing an error is more informative.
Another example - if parameter is null, and that causes an exception.. (although you probably should have taken care of that earlier in the code.. But you get the idea) - should have throw an appropriate (informative) exception.
If the client doesn't care at all why he didn't get any data back, you may return null, he'll ignore the error text anyhow and he's code will look the same..
If your client and service are running on different machines or different processes, it will be impossible to throw an error from the service and catch it on the client. If you insist on using exceptions, the best you can hope for is some proxy on the client to detect the error condition (either null or some other convention) and re-throw a new exception.
The general practice in handling exception is, when the sequence of flow is expected in the normal circumstance where as the sequence could not be completed due to non-availability of resources or expected input.
In your case, you still need to decide how do you want your client side code to react for null or exception.
How about passing in a delegate to be invoked when anything bad happens? The delegate could throw an exception if that's what the outside could would like, or let the function return null (if the outside code will check for that), or possibly take some other action. Depending upon the information passed to the delegate, it may be able to deal with problem conditions in such a way as to allow processing to continue (e.g. the delegate might set a 'retry' flag the first few times it's called, in case flaky network connections are expected). It may also be possible for a delegate to log information that wouldn't exist by the time an exception could get caught.
PS--It's probably best to pass a custom class to the problem-detected delegate. Doing that will allow for future versions of the method to provide additional information to the delegate, without breaking any implementations that expect the simpler information.
Exceptions are recommended in the same process space. Across processes, it is only through information that a success/failure is evaluated.
Since you are the client to your webservice, you can log the exception at the service layer and return null to the client, yet the client should still know if the CallGetSomeData returned null because a) data is not available, or b) there is a database exception as the table is locked. Hence its always good to know what has caused the error for easier reporting at client side. You should have a error code and description as part of your message.
If you are not consuming your webservice then you should definetly throw exception for the same reasons mentioned above, client should know what has happened and its upto them to decide to what to do with that.
We are developing a proxy in WCF that will serve as a means of communication for some handhelds running our custom client application. I am curious what error handling strategies people use as I would rather not wrap EVERY proxy call in try/catch.
When I develop ASP .NET I dont catch the majority of exceptions, I leverage Application_Error in Global asax which can then log the exception, send an email, and redirect the user to a custom error landing page. What I am looking for in WCF is similar to this, except that it would allow me to pass a general faultreason to the client from a central location.
Basically I am curious how people centralize their exception handling in WCF apps.
Thanks
You might find the IErrorHandler interface useful here. We've been using this to do pretty much what you mention - centralised exception logging and providing generalised fault reasons without having to litter the code with numerous try/catches to try and deal with the problem locally.
So here is what I did. We have a few custom exceptions in our application such as BusinessRuleException and ProcessException, WCF supports both FaultException and FaultException<T>.
General practice seems to be that you always throw FaultException to the client in the case of a general error or an error that you dont want to display exactly what happened. In other cases you can pass FaultException<T> where T is a class with information about the particular exception.
I created this concept of Violations in the application, which basically meant that any custom exception had a property containing the corresponding Violation instance. This instance was then passed down to the client enabling the client to recognize when a recoverable error had occured.
This solved part of the problem, but I still wanted a general catch all that would allow me to centeralize logging. I found this by using the IErrorHandle interface and adding my own custom error handler to WCF. Here is the code:
public class ServiceHostGeneralErrorHandler : IErrorHandler
{
public void ProvideFault(Exception ex, MessageVersion version, ref Message fault)
{
if (ex is FaultException)
return;
// a general message to the client
var faultException = new FaultException("A General Error Occured");
MessageFault messageFault = faultException.CreateMessageFault();
fault = Message.CreateMessage(version, messageFault, null);
}
public bool HandleError(Exception ex)
{
// log the exception
// mark as handled
return true;
}
}
Using this method, I can convert the exception from whatever it is to something that can be easily displayed on the client while at the same time logging the real exception for the IT staff to see. So far this approach is working quite well and follows the same structure as other modules in the application.
We use the Exception Handling Application block and shield most faults from clients to avoid disclosing sensitive information, this article might be a good starting point for you, as with "best practices" - you should use what fits your domain.