Exception handling using an HttpModule

Question

We\'re reviewing one of the company\'s system\'s exception handling and found a couple of interesting things.

Most of the code blocks (if not all of them) are inside a t

Answer 1

From my experience, catch the exception, add the error to the Server (?) object. This will allow .NET to do what ever it needs to do, then display your exception.

Answer 2

Sounds like the exception that is thrown should not have been implemented as an exception.

Anyway, I would say that since this BaseApplicationException is a general all-purpose exception, it would be good to throw exceptions that are more context-specific. So when you are trying to retrieve an entity from a database, you might want an EntityNotFoundException. This way when you are debugging you do not have to search through inner exceptions and stack traces to find the real issue. If this BAseApplicationException is collecting information on the exception (like keeping track of the inner exception) then this should not be a problem.

I would use the HttpModule only when I could not get any closer to where the exceptions are actually happening in code. You do not really want an HttModule OnError event that is a giant switch statement depending on BaseApplicationexception's error information.

To conclude, it is worth it to throw different exceptions when you can give more specific exceptions that tell you the root of the problem right off the bat.

Answer 3

Check out ELMAH. It does what you're talking about. Very well.

When I create libraries I try to always provide a reduced number of exceptions for callers to handle. For example, think of a Repository component that connects to a sql database. There are TONS of exceptions, from sql client exceptions to invalid cast exceptions, that can theoretically be thrown. Many of these are clearly documented and can be accounted for at compile time. So, I catch as many of them as I can, place them in a single exception type, say a RepositoryException, and let that exception roll up the call stack.

The original exception is retained, so the original exception can be diagnosed. But my callers only need to worry about handling a single exception type rather than litter their code with tons of different catch blocks.

There are, of course, some issues with this. Most notably, if the caller can handle some of these exceptions, they have to root around in the RepositoryException and then switch on the type of the inner exception to handle it. Its less clean than having a single catch block for a single exception type. I don't think thats much of an issue, however.

Answer 4

Never¹ catch (Exception ex). Period². There is no way you can handle all the different kinds of errors that you may catch.

Never³ catch an Exception-derived type if you can't handle it or provide additional information (to be used by subsequent exception handlers). Displaying an error message is not the same as handling the error.

A couple of reasons for this, from the top of my head:

• Catching and rethrowing is expensive
• You'll end up losing the stack trace
• You'll have a low signal-to-noice ratio in your code

If you know how to handle a specific exception (and reset the application to pre-error state), catch it. (That's why it's called exception handling.)

To handle exceptions that are not caught, listen for the appropriate events. When doing WinForms, you'll need to listen for System.AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException, and - if your doing Threading - System.Windows.Forms.Application.ThreadException. For web apps, there are similar mechanisms (System.Web.HttpApplication.Error).

As for wrapping framework exceptions in your application (non-)specific exceptions (i.e. throw new MyBaseException(ex);): Utterly pointless, and a bad smell.⁴

---

Edit

¹ Never is a very harsh word, especially when it comes to engineering, as @Chris pointed out in the comments. I'll admit to being high on principles when I first wrote this answer.

^2,3 See ¹.

⁴ If you don't bring anything new to the table, I still stand by this. If you have caught Exception ex as part of a method that you know could fail in any number of ways, I believe that the current method should reflect that in it's signature. And as you know, exceptions is not part of the method signature.

Answer 5

I'm from the school of thought where try/ catch blocks should be used and exceptions not rethrown. If you have executing code which is likely to error then it should be handled, logged and something returned. Rethrowing the exception only serves the purpose to re-log later in the application life cycle.

Here's an interesting post on how to use a HttpModule to handle exceptions: http://blogs.msdn.com/rahulso/archive/2008/07/13/how-to-use-httpmodules-to-troubleshoot-your-asp-net-application.aspx and http://blogs.msdn.com/rahulso/archive/2008/07/18/asp-net-how-to-write-error-messages-into-a-text-file-using-a-simple-httpmodule.aspx

Answer 6

If I am reading the question correctly, I would say that implementing a try / catch which intercept exceptions (you don't mention - is it catching all exceptions, or just a specific one?) and throws a different exception is generally a bad thing.

Disadvantages:

At the very least you will lose stack trace information - the stack you will see will only extend to the method in which the new exception is thrown - you potentially lose some good debug info here.

If you are catching Exception, you are running the risk of masking critical exceptions, like OutOfMemory or StackOverflow with a less critical exception, and thus leaving the process running, where perhaps it should have been torn down.

Possible Advantages:

In some very specific cases you could take an exception which doesn't have much debug value (like some exceptions coming back from a database) and wrap with an exception which adds more context, e.g id of the object you were dealing with.

However, in almost all cases this is a bad smell and should be used with caution.

Generally you should only catch an exception when there is something realistic that you can do in that location- ie recovering, rolling back, going to plan B etc. If there is nothing you can do about it, just allow it to pass up the chain. You should only catch and throw a new exception if there is specific and useful data available in that location which can augment the original exception and hence aid debugging.