quick question. Of course the stack trace gives way more information, but is it a bad practice to use the exception itself instead in some cases? Like just getting "null pointer exception" as opposed to this huge dump of stuff? If this doesn't make any sense, the two differences would be:
(Exception e)
{
print e
}
AND
(Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace
}
The difference between them is that print e returns the type of exception and error message while printStackTrace returns the whole stacktrace of the exception. printStackTrace is more beneficial to be used while debugging.
Example:
print e:
java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException
e.printStackTrace():
java.lang.IndexOutOfBoundsException: Index: 8, Size: 0
at java.util.ArrayList.RangeCheck(ArrayList.java:547)
at java.util.ArrayList.get(ArrayList.java:322)
at com.o2.business.util.Trial.test(CommonUtilsTest.java:866)
printStackTrace might be good for programmer, but it is not readable and user-friendly for end users. As far as I know, printStackTrace prints the results in the default Errorstream: your console. For better practices, you can check the link: http://www.onjava.com/pub/a/onjava/2003/11/19/exceptions.html
Collected from the Internet
Please contact [email protected] to delete if infringement.
Comments