Changes to web flow action proposal

[Cantor, Scott]

On 4/19/13 9:24 AM, "Marvin S. Addison" <marvin.addison at gmail.com> wrote:

>I can imagine there may be cases where the post routine might want to
>know an error occurred. If you don't care about passing in exception
>context to the post method, the simplest solution:
>
>try {
>   doExecute(...);
>} finally {
>   try {
>     doPostExecute(...);
>   } catch (Exception e);
>     log.error("doPostExecute failed", e);
>   }
>}

I started there, but I'm not comfortable swallowing a runtime error
altogether unless something else is being thrown. Since the post method is
not even supposed to throw, the fact that it does is something I don't
really want to hide. All of this occurs inside of an overarching execute()
method. If that throws, I want it to be visible.

The idea of passing the error into the post method is a good one, I've
done that sort of thing before.

-- Scott