Re: error analysis/handling/detecting/reporting/preventing/recovery/reproduce/debug

[jef.mangelschots@iname.com (Jef Mangelschots)]

On Sat, 30 Mar 2002 14:37:37 GMT, "Marc A. Criley"
<mcqada95@earthlink.net> wrote:

>If the first draft of your software is designed only to handle nominal
>cases, then the only error error/anomaly/fault present is BAD DESIGN. 
>Error handling and recovery must be _designed_ into the system, even if
>the actually implementation of the off-nominal recovery handling is
>stubbed out for the first draft.
>


I personally agree with you 100%.
Unfortuantely this happens a lot in the real world.

This is the second time I am thrown in a project at the point where
people tell me: We're pretty confident I does what it is supposed to
do in nominal cases but we still have to put in error handling !
Enter: yours truly.

In my previous project, they even deliberately planned it this way.
(it's even stipulated in the Project Management Plan). And this was a
major aerospace company. 


So I tried to fire my question as generally as possible so to look at
error handling from a broad perspective and maybe get a few pointers
on things I haven't realized yet. I can't ask particular questions
about things i don't know about (unfortunately). I'm fairly new to Ada
developing comming from C/C++ development.

I also posted this in other newsgroups because sometimes certain
practises in a particular programming language could prove valuable in
others. 

Regards
Jef