Error handling issue: which one is better, multiple catches/throw or cast System.Exceptio n to its runtime type?

[Carol]

Exception may be thrown in the code inside the try block.
I want to handling the SqlException with State == 1 in a special way,
and for all others I want to use a general way to handle. Which of the
following options is better?
-----------------------------------------------------
Option 1:
try{...}
catch (System.Data.Sq lClient.SqlExce ption ex)
{
if (ex.State == 1)
{
// special error handling
}
else
throw ex;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// general error handling
}
--------------------------------------------------
Option 2:

try{...}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (ex.GetType() == System.Data.Sql Client.SqlExcep tion
&& ((System.Data.S qlClient.SqlExc eption)ex).Stat e ==
1)
{
// special error handling
}
else
{
// general error handling
}

}

[Tom Porterfield]

Carol wrote:

Exception may be thrown in the code inside the try block.
I want to handling the SqlException with State == 1 in a special way,
and for all others I want to use a general way to handle. Which of the
following options is better?
-----------------------------------------------------
Option 1:
try{...}
catch (System.Data.Sq lClient.SqlExce ption ex)
{
if (ex.State == 1)
{
// special error handling
}
else
throw ex;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// general error handling
}

If I read you correctly, this won't give you the desired result. A
throw from within a catch block will not cause the exception to be
caught again by another catch in the same try/catch. Instead the
exception will only be caught if there is a higher level try/catch than
what you show above, or if you wrap the code within the first catch in
its own try/catch.

What you might want to consider is placing your "general error handling"
in a separate method that call from either the 'else' that is in your
first catch, or from your second catch.

--------------------------------------------------
Option 2:

try{...}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (ex.GetType() == System.Data.Sql Client.SqlExcep tion
&& ((System.Data.S qlClient.SqlExc eption)ex).Stat e ==
1)
{
// special error handling
}
else
{
// general error handling
}

}

I would do this slightly different (mostly a preference thing), but the
above will basically give you what you want.
--
Tom Porterfield

[Carol]

Thank you, you are absolutely right:)

On Jun 14, 10:40 am, Tom Porterfield <tppor...@mvps. orgwrote:

Carol wrote:

Exception may be thrown in the code inside the try block.
I want to handling the SqlException with State == 1 in a special way,
and for all others I want to use a general way to handle. Which of the
following options is better?
-----------------------------------------------------
Option 1:
try{...}
catch (System.Data.Sq lClient.SqlExce ption ex)
{
if (ex.State == 1)
{
// special error handling
}
else
throw ex;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// general error handling
}

If I read you correctly, this won't give you the desired result. A
throw from within a catch block will not cause the exception to be
caught again by another catch in the same try/catch. Instead the
exception will only be caught if there is a higher level try/catch than
what you show above, or if you wrap the code within the first catch in
its own try/catch.

What you might want to consider is placing your "general error handling"
in a separate method that call from either the 'else' that is in your
first catch, or from your second catch.

--------------------------------------------------
Option 2:

try{...}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (ex.GetType() == System.Data.Sql Client.SqlExcep tion
&& ((System.Data.S qlClient.SqlExc eption)ex).Stat e ==
1)
{
// special error handling
}
else
{
// general error handling
}

}

I would do this slightly different (mostly a preference thing), but the
above will basically give you what you want.
--
Tom Porterfield- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -