Unhandled Exceptions - Revisited

[Simon Tamman]

I posted a while back in regards to an exception not being caught which was
seriously freaking me out.
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that:

AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException+=new
UnhandledExceptionEventHandler(CurrentDomain_Unhan dledException);

Should catch unhandled exceptions.
However, according to:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000201.html

(read the comments, particulary the one from the guy at the CLR team)
It doesn't (or at least, isn't supposed to).

The fact that it did in 1.0 and 1.1 was a bug and it never was supposed to.
Does this mean that there is no "catch all" ability in the .NET Framework?

[Peter Bromberg [C# MVP]]

The AppDomain UnhandledExceptionEventHandler is NOT an "exception handler".
It is an event that tells you your AppDomain is about to unwind due to an
unhandled exception, giving you an opportunity to clean up and do any logging.
This might seem like frustrating behavior (the AppDomain blowing up on an
unhandled exception) but it prevents your app from getting into a comatose
state like in .NET 1.1 where it could still be running but act like it had
just had a lobotomy.

Peter

--
Co-founder, Eggheadcafe.com developer portal:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com
UnBlog:
http://petesbloggerama.blogspot.com


"Simon Tamman" wrote:

I posted a while back in regards to an exception not being caught which was
seriously freaking me out.
I thought it was pretty common knowledge that:

AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException+=new
UnhandledExceptionEventHandler(CurrentDomain_Unhan dledException);

Should catch unhandled exceptions.
However, according to:

http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/000201.html

(read the comments, particulary the one from the guy at the CLR team)
It doesn't (or at least, isn't supposed to).

The fact that it did in 1.0 and 1.1 was a bug and it never was supposed to.
Does this mean that there is no "catch all" ability in the .NET Framework?