[vtk-developers] RFC: PATCH for exception handling invtkWrapPython.c

[John Biddiscombe]

I like this solution.

What are kitware's feelings on exception handling for vtk itself though.
This was brought up a while ago and there was interest from the non kitware
developers, but is there any kind of roadmap that includes exception
handling for vtk in mind?

(Are there still compilers that can't be supported? A try catch block in
vtkProcessObject Update/Execute would prevent a huge amount of pain all
around I'm sure.)

JB






----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Charl P. Botha" <c.p.botha at ewi.tudelft.nl>
To: "Ken Martin" <ken.martin at kitware.com>
Cc: "'Mathieu Malaterre'" <mathieu.malaterre at kitware.com>; "VTK Developers"
<vtk-developers at vtk.org>
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:26 AM
Subject: RE: [vtk-developers] RFC: PATCH for exception handling
invtkWrapPython.c


> Hello Ken,
>
> On Mon, 2004-03-01 at 23:34, Ken Martin wrote:
> > This has the advantage of addressing the problem for all wrapped
languages
> > and C++ as well without much bloat. What are the disadvantages of that
> > approach?
>
> I've implemented your idea and it seems to work very well.  Please see
> the attached patch.  Thank you very much...  This is far less intrusive
> than my crazy wrapping system efforts, so maybe we could apply this one.
>
> If anybody else would like to comment on the attached patch, I would be
> most grateful.  Once again, any advice on the cross-platform-ness of
> std::exception would be most welcome.
>
> BTW, somehow the PipelineModified mechanism in vtkImageImport doesn't
> seem to work (it also didn't work before my changes).  With a pipeline
> like this: VTK -> ITK -> VTK, disconnecting the first input and
> reconnecting it doesn't modify the pipeline!  I.e., subsequent requests
> for Update() aren't effective.
>
> Thanks,
> Charl
>
> -- 
> charl p. botha http://cpbotha.net/ http://visualisation.tudelft.nl/
>
>