We Keep Coding

What is the purpose of using the following try-catch block? c# [duplicate]

I'm looking at the article C# - Data Transfer Object on serializable DTOs.
The article includes this piece of code:
public static string SerializeDTO(DTO dto) {
try {
XmlSerializer xmlSer = new XmlSerializer(dto.GetType());
StringWriter sWriter = new StringWriter();
xmlSer.Serialize(sWriter, dto);
return sWriter.ToString();
}
catch(Exception ex) {
throw ex;
}
}
The rest of the article looks sane and reasonable (to a noob), but that try-catch-throw throws a WtfException... Isn't this exactly equivalent to not handling exceptions at all?
Ergo:
public static string SerializeDTO(DTO dto) {
XmlSerializer xmlSer = new XmlSerializer(dto.GetType());
StringWriter sWriter = new StringWriter();
xmlSer.Serialize(sWriter, dto);
return sWriter.ToString();
}
Or am I missing something fundamental about error handling in C#? It's pretty much the same as Java (minus checked exceptions), isn't it? ... That is, they both refined C++.
The Stack Overflow question The difference between re-throwing parameter-less catch and not doing anything? seems to support my contention that try-catch-throw is-a no-op.
EDIT:
Just to summarise for anyone who finds this thread in future...
DO NOT
try {
// Do stuff that might throw an exception
}
catch (Exception e) {
throw e; // This destroys the strack trace information!
}
The stack trace information can be crucial to identifying the root cause of the problem!
DO
try {
// Do stuff that might throw an exception
}
catch (SqlException e) {
// Log it
if (e.ErrorCode != NO_ROW_ERROR) { // filter out NoDataFound.
// Do special cleanup, like maybe closing the "dirty" database connection.
throw; // This preserves the stack trace
}
}
catch (IOException e) {
// Log it
throw;
}
catch (Exception e) {
// Log it
throw new DAOException("Excrement occurred", e); // wrapped & chained exceptions (just like java).
}
finally {
// Normal clean goes here (like closing open files).
}
Catch the more specific exceptions before the less specific ones (just like Java).
References:
MSDN - Exception Handling
MSDN - try-catch (C# Reference)

First, the way that the code in the article does it is evil. throw ex will reset the call stack in the exception to the point where this throw statement is losing the information about where the exception actually was created.
Second, if you just catch and re-throw like that, I see no added value. The code example above would be just as good (or, given the throw ex bit, even better) without the try-catch.
However, there are cases where you might want to catch and rethrow an exception. Logging could be one of them:
try
{
// code that may throw exceptions
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// add error logging here
throw;
}

Don't do this,
try
{
...
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
throw ex;
}
You'll lose the stack trace information...
Either do,
try { ... }
catch { throw; }
OR
try { ... }
catch (Exception ex)
{
throw new Exception("My Custom Error Message", ex);
}
One of the reason you might want to rethrow is if you're handling different exceptions, for
e.g.
try
{
...
}
catch(SQLException sex)
{
//Do Custom Logging
//Don't throw exception - swallow it here
}
catch(OtherException oex)
{
//Do something else
throw new WrappedException("Other Exception occured");
}
catch
{
System.Diagnostics.Debug.WriteLine("Eeep! an error, not to worry, will be handled higher up the call stack");
throw; //Chuck everything else back up the stack
}

C# (before C# 6) doesn't support CIL "filtered exceptions", which VB does, so in C# 1-5 one reason for re-throwing an exception is that you don't have enough information at the time of catch() to determine whether you wanted to actually catch the exception.
For example, in VB you can do
Try
..
Catch Ex As MyException When Ex.ErrorCode = 123
..
End Try
...which would not handle MyExceptions with different ErrorCode values. In C# prior to v6, you would have to catch and re-throw the MyException if the ErrorCode was not 123:
try
{
...
}
catch(MyException ex)
{
if (ex.ErrorCode != 123) throw;
...
}
Since C# 6.0 you can filter just like with VB:
try
{
// Do stuff
}
catch (Exception e) when (e.ErrorCode == 123456) // filter
{
// Handle, other exceptions will be left alone and bubble up
}

My main reason for having code like:
try
{
//Some code
}
catch (Exception e)
{
throw;
}
is so I can have a breakpoint in the catch, that has an instantiated exception object. I do this a lot while developing/debugging. Of course, the compiler gives me a warning on all the unused e's, and ideally they should be removed before a release build.
They are nice during debugging though.

A valid reason for rethrowing exceptions can be that you want to add information to the exception, or perhaps wrap the original exception in one of your own making:
public static string SerializeDTO(DTO dto) {
try {
XmlSerializer xmlSer = new XmlSerializer(dto.GetType());
StringWriter sWriter = new StringWriter();
xmlSer.Serialize(sWriter, dto);
return sWriter.ToString();
}
catch(Exception ex) {
string message =
String.Format("Something went wrong serializing DTO {0}", DTO);
throw new MyLibraryException(message, ex);
}
}

Isn't this exactly equivalent to not
handling exceptions at all?
Not exactly, it isn't the same. It resets the exception's stacktrace.
Though I agree that this probably is a mistake, and thus an example of bad code.

You don't want to throw ex - as this will lose the call stack. See Exception Handling (MSDN).
And yes, the try...catch is doing nothing useful (apart from lose the call stack - so it's actually worse - unless for some reason you didn't want to expose this information).

This can be useful when your programming functions for a library or dll.
This rethrow structure can be used to purposefully reset the call stack so that instead of seeing the exception thrown from an individual function inside the function, you get the exception from the function itself.
I think this is just used so that the thrown exceptions are cleaner and don't go into the "roots" of the library.

A point that people haven't mentioned is that while .NET languages don't really make a proper distinction, the question of whether one should take action when an exception occurs, and whether one will resolve it, are actually distinct questions. There are many cases where one should take action based upon exceptions one has no hope of resolving, and there are some cases where all that is necessary to "resolve" an exception is to unwind the stack to a certain point--no further action required.
Because of the common wisdom that one should only "catch" things one can "handle", a lot of code which should take action when exceptions occur, doesn't. For example, a lot of code will acquire a lock, put the guarded object "temporarily" into a state which violates its invariants, then put it object into a legitimate state, and then release the lock back before anyone else can see the object. If an exception occurs while the object is in a dangerously-invalid state, common practice is to release the lock with the object still in that state. A much better pattern would be to have an exception that occurs while the object is in a "dangerous" condition expressly invalidate the lock so any future attempt to acquire it will immediately fail. Consistent use of such a pattern would greatly improve the safety of so-called "Pokemon" exception handling, which IMHO gets a bad reputation primarily because of code which allows exceptions to percolate up without taking appropriate action first.
In most .NET languages, the only way for code to take action based upon an exception is to catch it (even though it knows it's not going to resolve the exception), perform the action in question and then re-throw). Another possible approach if code doesn't care about what exception is thrown is to use an ok flag with a try/finally block; set the ok flag to false before the block, and to true before the block exits, and before any return that's within the block. Then, within finally, assume that if ok isn't set, an exception must have occurred. Such an approach is semantically better than a catch/throw, but is ugly and is less maintainable than it should be.

While many of the other answers provide good examples of why you might want to catch an rethrow an exception, no one seems to have mentioned a 'finally' scenario.
An example of this is where you have a method in which you set the cursor (for example to a wait cursor), the method has several exit points (e.g. if () return;) and you want to ensure the cursor is reset at the end of the method.
To do this you can wrap all of the code in a try/catch/finally. In the finally set the cursor back to the right cursor. So that you don't bury any valid exceptions, rethrow it in the catch.
try
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.WaitCursor;
// Test something
if (testResult) return;
// Do something else
}
catch
{
throw;
}
finally
{
Cursor.Current = Cursors.Default;
}

One possible reason to catch-throw is to disable any exception filters deeper up the stack from filtering down (random old link). But of course, if that was the intention, there would be a comment there saying so.

It depends what you are doing in the catch block, and if you are wanting to pass the error on to the calling code or not.
You might say Catch io.FileNotFoundExeption ex and then use an alternative file path or some such, but still throw the error on.
Also doing Throw instead of Throw Ex allows you to keep the full stack trace. Throw ex restarts the stack trace from the throw statement (I hope that makes sense).

In the example in the code you have posted there is, in fact, no point in catching the exception as there is nothing done on the catch it is just re-thown, in fact it does more harm than good as the call stack is lost.
You would, however catch an exception to do some logic (for example closing sql connection of file lock, or just some logging) in the event of an exception the throw it back to the calling code to deal with. This would be more common in a business layer than front end code as you may want the coder implementing your business layer to handle the exception.
To re-iterate though the There is NO point in catching the exception in the example you posted. DON'T do it like that!

Sorry, but many examples as "improved design" still smell horribly or can be extremely misleading. Having try { } catch { log; throw } is just utterly pointless. Exception logging should be done in central place inside the application. exceptions bubble up the stacktrace anyway, why not log them somewhere up and close to the borders of the system?
Caution should be used when you serialize your context (i.e. DTO in one given example) just into the log message. It can easily contain sensitive information one might not want to reach the hands of all the people who can access the log files. And if you don't add any new information to the exception, I really don't see the point of exception wrapping. Good old Java has some point for that, it requires caller to know what kind of exceptions one should expect then calling the code. Since you don't have this in .NET, wrapping doesn't do any good on at least 80% of the cases I've seen.

In addition to what the others have said, see my answer to a related question which shows that catching and rethrowing is not a no-op (it's in VB, but some of the code could be C# invoked from VB).

Most of answers talking about scenario catch-log-rethrow.
Instead of writing it in your code consider to use AOP, in particular Postsharp.Diagnostic.Toolkit with OnExceptionOptions IncludeParameterValue and
IncludeThisArgument

Rethrowing exceptions via throw is useful when you don't have a particular code to handle current exceptions, or in cases when you have a logic to handle specific error cases but want to skip all others.
Example:
string numberText = "";
try
{
Console.Write("Enter an integer: ");
numberText = Console.ReadLine();
var result = int.Parse(numberText);
Console.WriteLine("You entered {0}", result);
}
catch (FormatException)
{
if (numberText.ToLowerInvariant() == "nothing")
{
Console.WriteLine("Please, please don't be lazy and enter a valid number next time.");
}
else
{
throw;
}
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("Freed some resources.");
}
Console.ReadKey();
However, there is also another way of doing this, using conditional clauses in catch blocks:
string numberText = "";
try
{
Console.Write("Enter an integer: ");
numberText = Console.ReadLine();
var result = int.Parse(numberText);
Console.WriteLine("You entered {0}", result);
}
catch (FormatException) when (numberText.ToLowerInvariant() == "nothing")
{
Console.WriteLine("Please, please don't be lazy and enter a valid number next time.");
}
finally
{
Console.WriteLine("Freed some resources.");
}
Console.ReadKey();
This mechanism is more efficient than re-throwing an exception because
of the .NET runtime doesn’t have to rebuild the exception object
before re-throwing it.

Do I need to catch each individual exception type if I'm going to perform the same action?

Simply put, I don't expect this application to receive too many errors since it's a fairly controlled environment and the users are other developers.
Having said that, errors do happen sooner or later and I simply just want to keep a log of them and alert the user. I've got this method that tries to validate the information as best as it can, then it tries to copy a file from A to B.
try
{
File.Copy(source, destination, true);
return String.Empty;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
logOp.AddLog(ex);
return string.Format("ERROR: {0}{1}{2}", ex.Message, Environment.NewLine, ex.StackTrace);
}
The method returns an empty string if it was successful, and if not it logs the exception and returns it to the calling method for presentation.
Do I need to catch each individual Exception type that File.Copy can throw if I want the most detailed Message / Stack trace, or will just catching Exception work? I tried hardcoding it to throw new instances of the various Exceptions and it seems OK but I wasn't sure if there was some programming principle I was missing/violating

Since all you're doing in exception handler is logging, then I'd say no, just take the Exception and log the message.
Catching individual exceptions would be useful if you attempted to recover from the error.

I would keep it as is and just catch the base class Exception.
Logging the ex.ToString() like you implicitly do in logOp.AddLog(ex) should write the actual type of the exception (which could be one of these that File.Copy method can throw in the Exceptions section here )
Based on that link, the name of the actual exception should be informative enough since you are not attempting to recover from the exceptions, just logging them.

Does wrapping and rethrowing an exception impact performance?

I have followed this way of handling exception in my application. But my lead said I am doing it wrong. I am simply wrapping and rethrowing the same exception, which will impact performance.
What is wrong with my approach? Does anyone have any suggestions on how I can log and handle the exception here?
public class BusinessRepository : IBusinessRepo
{
public List<Employee> GetEmployees()
{
try
{
//do some DB operations
}
catch (SQLException sqlex)
{
Logger.Log("Exception detail with full stack trace");
throw new DALException(sqlex, "Error in data access layer");
}
}
}
public class BusinessLayerClass : IBusinessLayer
{
private readonly IBusinessRepo Repo;
public BusinessLayerClass(IBusinessRepo rep)
{
Repo = rep;
}
public List<Employee> GetEmployees()
{
try
{
List<Employee> emps= return Repo.GetEmployees();
}
catch (DALException dex)
{
//do nothin as it got already logged
throw;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Logger.Log(ex, "Business layer ex");
throw new BusinessLayerEx(ex);
}
}
}
public class HomeController : Controller
{
public ActionResult Index()
{
try
{
List < Employee >= BusinessLayerClass.GetEmployees();
}
catch (DALException)
{
//show error msg to user
}
catch (BusinessLayerEx)
{
//show error msg to user
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Logger.Log();
//show error msg to user
}
return View(emps);
}
}
Do i follow right way of bubbling and handling and logging shown above?

I'm inclined to agree with your way of doing this, as long as two conditions are met:
Your Logger.Log statements log something more meaningful/useful than what you've indicated here (I'm guessing your code here is just a sample message indicating the error is logged). If it provides information you can use to track down the cause of the exception, good.
Your //show error msg to user comments mean that in that location, you render a nice view explaining that an error has occured, and you aren't just showing a default exception screen/strack trace.
As far as your throw; when you catch the DALException you just threw: that's fine. Your goal here seems to be to catch any exception coming out of the previous layer and log it, throwing your own exception afterwards. Since DALException will only be thrown if you've already logged another error and thrown it yourself, it's perfectly fine to let it bubble up past this level.

The general rule of thumb for exceptions is do not catch them unless you can "do something about it", i.e. add value. Ideally this would be some kind of graceful recovery to the point that the user never knows there was a hiccup, but at the very minimum this would include logging the exception -- which you are doing.
Do not catch an exception only to immediately re-throw it. That adds no value. (An exception to this might be if you need to change the type of exception to something more informative/appropriate to the context).

Throwing and catching exceptions is expensive compared to any normal return mechanism, but it's kind of besides the point - we're not supposed to use exceptions as normal control-flow mechanisms, but to handle exceptional things.
Exception handling can be quite challenging technically. After all, most of the time we exactly don't expect them. But what can make it near-impossible to get exception handling "right" is when the team or project simply doesn't have any kind of strategy for error handling. In an ideal world, we would know at the outset exactly what sort of error conditions we need to cope with, and we'd design the whole application with those in mind (along with the gazillion other constraints we also need to keep in mind, from code readability to performance).
I'd say if your lead says "this is wrong" then it's fair to ask "what's our error-handling strategy?". If you don't even know what purpose your code is supposed to fulfill, how can you possibly deliver great code?

There's nothing wrong with your approach but I don't see that your custom exceptions add much value. A example of how wrapping an exception in the DAL could add value is if you wrapped specific SQL exceptions, such as unique key violation, in a custom exception so that your UI could present a meaningful error message.
As for performance, it doesn't really matter anyway because something very bad has already happened.

C# exception handling, which catch clause to use? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Catching specific vs. generic exceptions in c#
Here's an example method
private static void outputDictionaryContentsByDescending(Dictionary<string, int> list)
{
try
{
//Outputs entire list in descending order
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, int> pair in list.OrderByDescending(key => key.Value))
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}, {1}", pair.Key, pair.Value);
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
MessageBox.Show(e.Message, "Error detected", MessageBoxButtons.OK, MessageBoxIcon.Error);
}
}
I would like to know what exception clause to use apart from just Exception and if there is an advantage in using more specific catch clauses.
Edit: O.k thanks everyone

Catching individual types of Exceptions in your statement will allow you to handle each in a different way.
A blanket rule for Exception may be useful for logging and rethrowing Exceptions, but isn't the best for actually handling Exceptions that you may be able to recover from.
try
{
// open a file specified by the user
}
catch(FileNotFoundException ex)
{
// notify user and re-prompt for file
}
catch(UnauthorizedAccessException ex)
{
// inform user they don't have access, either re-prompt or close dialog
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Logger.LogException(ex);
throw;
}

You should only really catch exceptions that you are expecting that code may throw. That way, if it throws something you didn't expect, it may either be something critical; something that should bubble up the call stack and possibly crash the application; or something you have not thought of.
For example, you may wish to handle IOExceptions thrown by I/O code so that you can relay the problem back to the user. However, the same operations may throw something more critical such as an AccessViolationException. In this case, you might want the program to terminate, or handle the problem in a different way.
Generic exception handling should only really be used in cases where you do not care what error occurred, and subsequently don't want it affecting the rest of your process.

The only potential cause for an exception that I see in your example is if list is null. OrderByDescending() should return an empty IEnumerable<> rather than a null reference.
If I read that correctly, it might make more sense to catch NullReferenceException:
try
{
...
} catch (NullReferenceException exception)
{
MessageBox.Show(...);
}
However, this really depends on the needs of your application. If your intention is just to alert the user or to log all exceptions, catching the Exception class is fine. If you need special handling for different types of exceptions - such as sending an email alert instead of just logging the message - then it makes sense to use specific exception types:
try
{
}
catch(NullReferenceException e)
{
//...
}
catch(StackOverflowException e)
{
//...
}
catch(Exception e)
{
/// generic exception handler
}

Which exception to use really depends on the code in the try block. In general you want to catch exceptions that you can do something with and let exceptions you have no power over move to high levels of your code where you can perform some action that makes since. One of the most common mistakes I see people make is attempting to catch errors that they have no ability to handle.
for example
Void ChoseFile()
{
try
{
string FileName = GetInputFile()
}
catch( InvalidFileSelectedException ex)
{
//In this case we have some application specific exception
//There may be a business logic failure we have some ability
//to infomr the user or do an action that makes sense
}
catch(FileNotFoundException exfilenot found)
{
//In this case we can do somthing different the the above
}
catch(Exception )
{
//Normal I would not use this case we have an error we don't know what to do
//with. We may not have a usefull action. At best we can log this exception
// and rethrow it to a higher level of the application that can inform the user
// fail the attempted action. Catching here would only suppress the failure.
}
}

You should always catch exceptions with an as specific class as possible.
If you know what to do if a file is locked, but you regard all other errors as unexpected and impossible to handle, you should catch System.IO.IOException and deal with the error. You should only catch Exception (or just catch {) for gracefully exiting.

Since you are dealing with a Dictionary.. then you want to look at these 2 exceptions
The key of keyValuePair is a null reference (Nothing in Visual Basic).
ArgumentException An element with the same key already exists in the Dictionary(TKey, TValue).
KekValuePair Exception
This is taken from the MSDN site

Use the exception type that you might expect but still not be able to prevent and that you can adequately handle. Let anything else bubble up to somewhere that might expect it or can handle it.
In your case here, I might expect that I would run into a NullReferenceException if the dictionary is null. But I would not catch it. This is something I can validate against instead
if (dictionary != null)
So there is no reason to allow an exception to even happen. Never use exceptions for control flow, and validate against known causes.

Some classes/methods will throw different exceptions, depending on the error. For example, you might be using the File class to write data to a file. You could write multiple Catch statements for the exception types you could recover from, and a generic Exception catch to log and bubble up anything that can't be recovered from.

By using Exception you catch all exceptions. Of you use IOException or StackOverflowException you'll only catch errors of that type.
a StackOverflowException catched by a Exception still hold the same message, stack trace etc.

Exception handling philosophy
I am sure you can find many other philosophies
Code defensively. Catching exceptions is more expensive than preventing the error in the first place.
Don't catch an exception and bury it by not handling it. You can spend many hours trying to find an error that has been suppressed.
Do log errors that you catch.
This helps in analyzing the problem. You can check to see if more than one user is having the same problem
I prefer a database for logging, but a flat file, or the event log are also suitable.
The database solution is easiest to analyze but may introduce additional errors.
If the error is due to bad data entered by the user, inform the user of the problem and allow them to retry.
Always allow an escape route if they cannot fix the problem.
Catch the error as close to the source as possible
This could be a database procedure, a method in a data access layer (DAL) or some other location.
Handling the exception is different than catching it. You may need to rethrow the exception so that it can be handled higher up the stack or in the UI.
Rethrowing the exception can be done in at least two ways.
throw by itself does not alter the stack.
throw ex does alter or add to the stack with no benefit.
Sometimes it is best not to catch an exception, but rather let it bubble up.
If you are writing services (web or windows) that do not have a user interface (UI) then you should always log the error.
Again, this is so that someone can analyze the log or database file to determine what is happening.
You always want someone to know that an error has occurred.
Having a lot of catch statements for a try block can make your code more difficult to maintain, especially if the logic in your catch blocks is complex.
Instead, code defensively.
Remember that you can have try catch blocks within catch blocks.
Also, don't forget to use the finally block where appropriate.
For example, closing database connections, or file handles, etc.
HTH
Harv

Should I catch exceptions only to log them?

Should I catch exceptions for logging purposes?
public foo(..)
{
try
{
...
} catch (Exception ex) {
Logger.Error(ex);
throw;
}
}
If I have this in place in each of my layers (DataAccess, Business and WebService) it means the exception is logged several times.
Does it make sense to do so if my layers are in separate projects and only the public interfaces have try/catch in them?
Why? Why not? Is there a different approach I could use?

Definitely not. You should find the correct place to handle the exception (actually do something, like catch-and-not-rethrow), and then log it. You can and should include the entire stack trace of course, but following your suggestion would litter the code with try-catch blocks.

Unless you are going to change the exception, you should only log at the level where you are going to handle the error and not rethrow it. Otherwise your log just has a bunch of "noise", 3 or more of the same message logged, once at each layer.
My best practice is:
Only try/catch in public methods (in general; obviously if you are trapping for a specific error you would check for it there)
Only log in the UI layer right before suppressing the error and redirecting to an error page/form.

The general rule of thumb is that you only catch an exception if you can actually do something about it. So at the Business or Data layer, you would only catch the exception in situation's like this:
try
{
this.Persist(trans);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
trans.Rollback();
throw;
}
My Business/Data Layer attempts to save the data - if an exception is generated, any transactions are rolled back and the exception is sent to the UI layer.
At the UI layer, you can implement a common exception handler:
Application.ThreadException += new ThreadExceptionEventHandler(Application_ThreadException);
Which then handles all exceptions. It might log the exception and then display a user friendly response:
static void Application_ThreadException(object sender, ThreadExceptionEventArgs e)
{
LogException(e.Exception);
}
static void LogException(Exception ex)
{
YYYExceptionHandling.HandleException(ex,
YYYExceptionHandling.ExceptionPolicyType.YYY_Policy,
YYYExceptionHandling.ExceptionPriority.Medium,
"An error has occurred, please contact Administrator");
}
In the actual UI code, you can catch individual exception's if you are going to do something different - such as display a different friendly message or modify the screen, etc.
Also, just as a reminder, always try to handle errors - for example divide by 0 - rather than throw an exception.

It's good practice is to translate the exceptions. Don't just log them. If you want to know the specific reason an exception was thrown, throw specific exceptions:
public void connect() throws ConnectionException {
try {
File conf = new File("blabla");
...
} catch (FileNotFoundException ex) {
LOGGER.error("log message", ex);
throw new ConnectionException("The configuration file was not found", ex);
}
}

Use your own exceptions to wrap inbuild exception. This way you can distinct between known and unknown errors when catching exception. This is usefull if you have a method that calls other methods that are likely throwing excpetions to react upon expected and unexpected failures

you may want to lookup standard exception handling styles, but my understanding is this: handle exceptions at the level where you can add extra detail to the exception, or at the level where you will present the exception to the user.
in your example you are doing nothing but catching the exception, logging it, and throwing it again.. why not just catch it at the highest level with one try/catch instead of inside every method if all you are doing is logging it?
i would only handle it at that tier if you were going to add some useful information to the exception before throwing it again - wrap the exception in a new exception you create that has useful information beyond the low level exception text which usually means little to anyone without some context..

Sometimes you need to log data which is not available where the exception is handled. In that case, it is appropriate to log just to get that information out.
For example (Java pseudocode):
public void methodWithDynamicallyGeneratedSQL() throws SQLException {
String sql = ...; // Generate some SQL
try {
... // Try running the query
}
catch (SQLException ex) {
// Don't bother to log the stack trace, that will
// be printed when the exception is handled for real
logger.error(ex.toString()+"For SQL: '"+sql+"'");
throw; // Handle the exception long after the SQL is gone
}
}
This is similar to retroactive logging (my terminology), where you buffer a log of events but don't write them unless there's a trigger event, such as an exception being thrown.

If you're required to log all exceptions, then it's a fantastic idea. That said, logging all exceptions without another reason isn't such a good idea.

You may want to log at the highest level, which is usually your UI or web service code. Logging multiple times is sort of a waste. Also, you want to know the whole story when you are looking at the log.
In one of our applications, all of our pages are derived from a BasePage object, and this object handles the exception handling and error logging.

If that's the only thing it does, i think is better to remove the try/catch's from those classes and let the exception be raised to the class that is responsible on handling them. That way you get only one log per exception giving you more clear logs and even you can log the stacktrace so you wont miss from where the exception was originated.

My method is to log the exceptions only in the handler. The 'real' handler so to speak. Otherwise the log will be very hard to read and the code less structured.

It depends on the Exception: if this actually should not happen, I definitely would log it. On the other way: if you expect this Exception you should think about the design of the application.
Either way: you should at least try to specify the Exception you want to rethrow, catch or log.
public foo(..)
{
try
{
...
}
catch (NullReferenceException ex) {
DoSmth(e);
}
catch (ArgumentExcetion ex) {
DoSmth(e);
}
catch (Exception ex) {
DoSmth(e);
}
}

You will want to log at a tier boundary. For example, if your business tier can be deployed on a physically separate machine in an n-tier application, then it makes sense to log and throw the error in this way.
In this way you have a log of exceptions on the server and don't need to go poking around client machines to find out what happened.
I use this pattern in business tiers of applications that use Remoting or ASMX web services. With WCF you can intercept and log an exception using an IErrorHandler attached to your ChannelDispatcher (another subject entirely) - so you don't need the try/catch/throw pattern.

You need to develop a strategy for handling exceptions. I don't recommend the catch and rethrow. In addition to the superfluous log entries it makes the code harder to read.
Consider writing to the log in the constructor for the exception. This reserves the try/catch for exceptions that you want to recover from; making the code easier to read. To deal with unexpected or unrecoverable exceptions, you may want a try/catch near the outermost layer of the program to log diagnostic information.
BTW, if this is C++ your catch block is creating a copy of the exception object which can be a potential source of additional problems. Try catching a reference to the exception type:
catch (const Exception& ex) { ... }

This Software Engineering Radio podcast is a very good reference for best practices in error handling. There are actually 2 lectures.

It's bad practice in general, unless you need to log for very specific reasons.
With respect in general log exception, it should be handled in root exception handler.