Also I can't set some fields of obj to null. How can I solve it? Monday, July 3, PM. When an exception is being thrown it helps if you provide the whole exception including the stack trace. It usually helps us identify the problem quicker and more accurately. Whats the point of passing nothing to a webmethod?
Your WebService won't know what to do with it. Add header. Item1, header. Item2 ; if content. GetBytes content ; httpWebRequest. Write byteArray, 0, byteArray. Length ; dataStream. Write text, 0, text. WriteLine ex. ConcatenateRequestElements method, uri.
ParseQueryString uri. ParseQueryString ; endif if! AllKeys else foreach var parameter in urlParameters. Post: parameters. Add new HttpPostParameter parameter, urlParameters[parameter] ; break; default: parameters. Add new WebPair parameter. Name, parameter.
TryAddWithoutValidation header. Key, header. PostAsync url, content ; return Result. OkResultT await response. GetByteArrayAsync url ; return Result. OkResultT encoding. OkResultT await client. DeleteAsync url ; return Result. In this case our application is not allowed to crash with ASP errors at any point. That is what the logging is there to report for the developers since the client does not need to see that.
In this sub function call if an error is caught it is logged and then return and exits the methods with Nothing values for the DataSet object. Once the block was remove the same result is still produced. Upon looking into the Error further it appears to be something in each log message so it could be that the logger is not being configured properly. I will try hard coding the initialization variable for that and see if it yields any results.
Are you running ASP. NET 2. Here's why not:. It logs more information than most "by hand" loggers provide. Returning Nothing from a method that throws an unhandled exception is fundamentally wrong. This is back to the days of functions returning error codes that the callers have to remember to check. By returning Nothing, you permit your caller to continue even when it is unsafe to do so because of the condition that caused the exception.
In my experience, this sort of thing gets embedded into the mindset of a development organization, and will lead to exceptions being eaten when they should be logged, and code executing when it is unsafe to do so.
This problem is more often caused by the namespace part of the name being incorrect. However, it seems you've had the local name part incorrect, not the namespace. Your rules of thumb go against Microsoft's own method for using the Application logger you mentioned.
Never once in my programming career have I been told to ignore and not try to handle all possible exception. Gracefully handling exception is what allows for a more user friendly application. Showing a generic error page is last resort programming and poor error handling.
If I can handle the error up front and tell the user what the actual issue is in real time then it will help them know what to report to support if they have an issue.
Giving them a generic message does not help anything. The article you refer to is a generic VB. NET article. It is not about ASP. NET and web services. If you are running in ASP. NET Health Monitoring will do this for you. See ASP. Also, just try it and then look in the event log and see what happened.
Note that, by default, the unhandled exception events are logged as warnings. If you've learned to handle all possible exceptions, then you should unlearn it.
0コメント