Re: exception handling

Hi,

Herman Bruyninckx wrote:

> On Tue, 5 Mar 2002, Cezary Zielinski wrote:
>
> > Exception handling should be synonymous to handling error situations. We
> > should not try to use that in situations that are not disastrous to the
> > system. If a disaster occurs the time restrictions are not valid any more,
> > so the indeterminism that you are speaking about is no longer an issue. I
> > use exception handling extensively in MRROC++ and don't have problems with
> > that.
>
> There are different levels of error situations! Some are indeed a
> `disaster', but others reflect nothing more than a change in the
> currently valid assumptions in the robot control. The latter ones can
> and should be dealt with in real-time, in some cases.
>
> The terminology `exception' is indeed a bit overloaded :-) I think
> Anders used it in the C++ interpretation of the word, which is the one
> I also use in the previous paragraph.

I agree with Herman. I think we need to define a taxonomy or typology of
"errors", ranging from catastrophic failures to simple "warnings". I think we
don't need to specify all possible errors, but the general clases. Then, I will
try to enforce the adoption of an uniform handling method for each error
typology that should be part of the Orocos' component specification.

Regards.

Jorge

===========================================================
Jorge Cabrera Gamez
Facultad de Informatica
Universidad de Las Palmas de Gran Canaria
Campus Universitario de Tafira
35017 Las Palmas de Gran Canaria.
SPAIN
Tel: +34 928 458758
Fax: +34 928 458711
E-mail: [email protected]
============================================================