CATCH block question

Hello,
With the new TRY - CATCH block feature in 2005, is there any way for
the calling application to know about errors unless I use RAISERROR'
The reason I ask is, I'd like to start using the new TRY - CATCH
syntax, but I don't know if our code is set up to receive the specific
error codes such as ERROR_MESSAGE or ERROR_SEVERITY (as shown below).
In fact, I don't even know if our apps are set up to handle return
codes. I think the way things have generally worked is - the stored
procedure is just allowed to break, with no error handling at all.
DECLARE @.ErrMsg nvarchar(4000), @.ErrSeverity int
SELECT @.ErrMsg = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @.ErrSeverity = ERROR_SEVERITY()
RAISERROR (@.ErrMsg, @.ErrSeverity, 1)
So, I'm wondering, is it possible to use TRY - CATCH block WITHOUT
using RAISERROR, but still have the calling app know about it?
If not, that means we have to rewrite a lot of code, which is not
desireable.
ThanksYou have to use RAISERROR to pass a logic error back to the application.
Of course, any unhandled errors, or critical SQL Server errors 'may' send an
error back to the application without having to raise an error.
--
Arnie Rowland, Ph.D.
Westwood Consulting, Inc
Most good judgment comes from experience.
Most experience comes from bad judgment.
- Anonymous
<tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160429120.981006.283160@.e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> With the new TRY - CATCH block feature in 2005, is there any way for
> the calling application to know about errors unless I use RAISERROR'
> The reason I ask is, I'd like to start using the new TRY - CATCH
> syntax, but I don't know if our code is set up to receive the specific
> error codes such as ERROR_MESSAGE or ERROR_SEVERITY (as shown below).
> In fact, I don't even know if our apps are set up to handle return
> codes. I think the way things have generally worked is - the stored
> procedure is just allowed to break, with no error handling at all.
> DECLARE @.ErrMsg nvarchar(4000), @.ErrSeverity int
> SELECT @.ErrMsg = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @.ErrSeverity = ERROR_SEVERITY()
> RAISERROR (@.ErrMsg, @.ErrSeverity, 1)
> So, I'm wondering, is it possible to use TRY - CATCH block WITHOUT
> using RAISERROR, but still have the calling app know about it?
> If not, that means we have to rewrite a lot of code, which is not
> desireable.
> Thanks
>|||<tootsuite@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1160429120.981006.283160@.e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> Hello,
> With the new TRY - CATCH block feature in 2005, is there any way for
> the calling application to know about errors unless I use RAISERROR'
> The reason I ask is, I'd like to start using the new TRY - CATCH
> syntax, but I don't know if our code is set up to receive the specific
> error codes such as ERROR_MESSAGE or ERROR_SEVERITY (as shown below).
> In fact, I don't even know if our apps are set up to handle return
> codes. I think the way things have generally worked is - the stored
> procedure is just allowed to break, with no error handling at all.
> DECLARE @.ErrMsg nvarchar(4000), @.ErrSeverity int
> SELECT @.ErrMsg = ERROR_MESSAGE(), @.ErrSeverity = ERROR_SEVERITY()
> RAISERROR (@.ErrMsg, @.ErrSeverity, 1)
> So, I'm wondering, is it possible to use TRY - CATCH block WITHOUT
> using RAISERROR, but still have the calling app know about it?
>
No. Applications typically expect to receive an error message when
something goes wrong. For instance .NET clients will receive the error
message and raise a SqlException, thus invoking the client-side structured
exception handling. Conceptually this allows an error to propagate from
server code to client code.
> If not, that means we have to rewrite a lot of code, which is not
> desireable.
>
Probably not. For most clients, using RAISERROR to "re-raise" the error
"just works".
David