Looking for my RSS feed? Here it is!

try{}catch{} in .NET 2.0 - Part 2

Monday, December 5, 2005

As I pointed out in a previous entry, try{}catch{} works differently in .NET 2.0 as it does in .NET 1.x. In 2.0, non-exception "throwables" are wrapped in a RuntimeWrappedException which can be caught by try{}catch(Exception ex){}, while, to catch then in .NET 1.x, you were required to use try{}catch{}. This led me to wonder 1) how does this work? and 2) is there even a purpose for try{}catch{} anymore?

So I started my research by... well, passing the buck, or going to the source, depending on your view on things. The first thing I did was ask Brad Abrams if he had some insights about this. He then forwarded me to Jonathan Keljo who I guess then forwarded me to Joe Duffy...sheesh what a line up! The best of the best of the best right there! Goodness, I feel like an ant...

Anyhow... here's the thing. Joe affirmed that there are at least two purposes for try{}catch{} in .NET 2.0

Here are his exact words...

(1) If your assembly doesn't have "wrapping" turned on;

(2) If you don't care to access the exception information via a variable. This can help to reduce the temptation to accidentally do a catch(Exception e){ /*...*/; throw e; } when you meant to do catch { /*...*/ throw; }.

OK cool, now what about the mechanics? Joe explains that the wrapping of RuntimeWrapperException around non-exception throwables is due to the fact that C# and VB auto opt-in all assemblies to what they call "the wrapping plan". This means there is a RuntimeCompatibilityAttribute(...) on the assembly where, in this case, WrapNonExceptionThrows=true is set. When this is the case all non-System.Exception "exceptions" get wrapped into a RuntimeWrappedException, which, as Joe points out of course does inherit from System.Exception. Conversely, if WrapNonExceptionThrows=false is set, then there is no magical wrapping.

Let's see this all in action. But before we do, last time I wrote about this I forgot to what mention happens when you compile the below code (this is the same code from the previous blog entry about this topic)

// ThrowerHarness.cs
namespace ThrowerExample
{
    class ThrowerHarness
    {
        static void Main(string[] args) {
            try {
                Thrower.ThrowException( );
            }
            catch (System.Exception ex) {
                System.Console.WriteLine("System.Exception error: " + ex.Message);
            }
            catch {
                System.Console.WriteLine("Non System.Exception based error.");
            }

            try {
                Thrower.ThrowString( );
            }
            catch (System.Exception ex) {
                System.Console.WriteLine("System.Exception error: " + ex.Message);
            }
            catch {
                System.Console.WriteLine("Non System.Exception based error.");
            }
        }
    }
}

Compiling this code actually gives the following warnings...

throwerlib.cs(16,7): warning CS1058: A previous catch clause already catches all
        exceptions. All non-exceptions thrown will be wrapped in a
        System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeWrappedException
throwerlib.cs(29,7): warning CS1058: A previous catch clause already catches all
        exceptions. All non-exceptions thrown will be wrapped in a
        System.Runtime.CompilerServices.RuntimeWrappedException

As you can see, we know at compile that try{}catch(Exception ex){} will grab the exceptions.

Here's the IL we are using, which contains the Thrower class and is referenced by the C# application.

// ThrowerLib.il
.assembly ThrowerLib { }

.class public Thrower {
    .method static public void ThrowException( ) {
        ldstr "ThrowException exception from the IL world!"
        newobj instance void [mscorlib]System.Exception::.ctor(string)
        throw
        ret
    }

    .method static public void ThrowString( ) {
        ldstr "Weird exception!"
        throw
        ret
    }
}

Of course, there's our command syntax...

ilasm /t:dll ThrowerLib.il
csc Thrower.cs /r:ThrowerLib.dll

After a successful assembly and compilation, running this application gives the following output...

System.Exception error: ThrowException exception from the IL world!
System.Exception error: An object that does not derive from System.Exception has been wrapped in a RuntimeWrappedException.

Now, what about what Joe was saying about the RuntimeCompatibilityAttribute? Well, if we were to tack the following onto our existing class, we would get absolutely no warnings. Pretty cool...

using System.Runtime.CompilerServices;
[assembly: RuntimeCompatibility(WrapNonExceptionThrows = false)]

Not only that, but here's the output as we would expect.

System.Exception error: ThrowException exception from the IL world!
Non System.Exception based error.

As you can see it did not wrap the exception. So, now, the picture of how things work and how to modify them is a bit more complete.

You can download the code for this entry by the link below.

Joe Duffy also has an explanation of this, although his is from the Beta 2 era (I only see one change -- WrapNonClsExceptions -> WrapNonExceptionThrows; but there may be more). Here is his article.

Comments (6)

Joe Duffy

Great write-up! One additional facet that will probably go (mostly) unnoticed is that you can throw exceptions across assembly boundaries, and the wrapping will occur based on the assembly-level attribute on the assembly whose catch block is being evaluated. This makes interoperability with code that isn't on the wrapping plan, e.g. COBOL or Eiffel, work seamlessly as you would expect. cheers, joe

12/6/2005 7:10:00 PM

Joel Lyons

You said, "This can help to reduce the temptation to accidentally do a catch(Exception e){ /*...*/; throw e; } when you meant to do catch { /*...*/ throw; }." What's the difference? Should I not use the former code?

12/7/2005 1:18:00 PM

Björn

I think the difference is that with "throw e", you're creating a new call stack, whereas "throw" will preserve the original callstack.

12/8/2005 3:15:00 AM

Anonymous

what would be some of the practical scenarios to use throw for non-execption data? I have never used it, so wondering.

12/9/2005 12:22:00 PM

David Betz

The focus isn't so much on wanting to or not wanting to, but rather how to deal with the scenario. If you ever see that an API throws 7, for example, you will know how to deal with it.

12/9/2005 1:59:00 PM

Anonymous

A practical scenario coems from other languages, which as implementation use the exception mechanism as control flow to pass results higher up the stack. This may sound weird (and the CLR exception mechanism isn't cheap), but there are some programming models that use it.

12/14/2005 2:10:00 PM

Comments have been closed for this entry.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 2.5 License.

Powered by the Minima Blog Engine, NetFXHarmonics Prominax, and Squid Micro-Blogging library.

Developed using NetFXHarmonics DevServer.

Mini-icons are part of the Silk Icons set of icons at famfamfam.com