We Keep Coding

Handling exceptions thrown by "Dispose" while unwinding nested "using" statements

Apparently, some exceptions may just get lost while using nested using statement. Consider this simple console app:
using System;
namespace ConsoleApplication
{
public class Throwing: IDisposable
{
int n;
public Throwing(int n)
{
this.n = n;
}
public void Dispose()
{
var e = new ApplicationException(String.Format("Throwing({0})", this.n));
Console.WriteLine("Throw: {0}", e.Message);
throw e;
}
}
class Program
{
static void DoWork()
{
// ...
using (var a = new Throwing(1))
{
// ...
using (var b = new Throwing(2))
{
// ...
using (var c = new Throwing(3))
{
// ...
}
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException += (sender, e) =>
{
// this doesn't get called
Console.WriteLine("UnhandledException:", e.ExceptionObject.ToString());
};
try
{
DoWork();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
// this handles Throwing(1) only
Console.WriteLine("Handle: {0}", e.Message);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
}
Each instance of Throwing throws when it gets disposed of. AppDomain.CurrentDomain.UnhandledException never gets called.
The output:
Throw: Throwing(3)
Throw: Throwing(2)
Throw: Throwing(1)
Handle: Throwing(1)
I prefer to at least be able to log the missing Throwing(2) and Throwing(3). How do I do this, without resorting to a separate try/catch for each using (which would kinda kill the convenience of using)?
In real life, those objects are often instances of classes over which I have no control. They may or may not be throwing, but in case they do, I'd like to have an option to observe such exceptions.
This question came along while I was looking at reducing the level of nested using. There's a neat answer suggesting aggregating exceptions. It's interesting how this is different from the standard behavior of nested using statements.
[EDITED] This question appears to be closely related:
Should you implement IDisposable.Dispose() so that it never throws?

There's a code analyzer warning for this. CA1065, "Do not raise exceptions in unexpected locations". The Dispose() method is on that list. Also a strong warning in the Framework Design Guide, chapter 9.4.1:
AVOID throwing an exception from within Dispose(bool) except under critical situations where the containing process has been corrupted (leaks, inconsistent shared state, etc.).
This goes wrong because the using statement calls Dispose() inside a finally block. An exception raised in a finally block can have an unpleasant side-effect, it replaces an active exception if the finally block was called while the stack is being unwound because of an exception. Exactly what you see happening here.
Repro code:
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
try {
try {
throw new Exception("You won't see this");
}
finally {
throw new Exception("You'll see this");
}
}
catch (Exception ex) {
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}

What you are noticing is a fundamental problem in the design of Dispose and using, for which no nice solution as yet exists. IMHO the best design would be to have a version of Dispose which receives as an argument any exception which may be pending (or null, if none is pending), and can either log or encapsulate that exception if it needs to throw one of its own. Otherwise, if you have control of both the code which could cause an exception within the using as well as within the Dispose, you may be able to use some sort of outside data channel to let the Dispose know about the inner exception, but that's rather hokey.
It's too bad there's no proper language support for code associated with a finally block (either explicitly, or implicitly via using) to know whether the associated try completed properly and if not, what went wrong. The notion that Dispose should silently fail is IMHO very dangerous and wrongheaded. If an object encapsulates a file which is open for writing, and Dispose closes the file (a common pattern) and the data cannot be written, having the Dispose call return normally would lead the calling code to believe the data was written correctly, potentially allowing it to overwrite the only good backup. Further, if files are supposed to be closed explicitly and calling Dispose without closing a file should be considered an error, that would imply that Dispose should throw an exception if the guarded block would otherwise complete normally, but if the guarded block fails to call Close because an exception occurred first, having Dispose throw an exception would be very unhelpful.
If performance isn't critical, you could write a wrapper method in VB.NET which would accept two delegates (of types Action and an Action<Exception>), call the first within a try block, and then call the second in a finally block with the exception that occurred in the try block (if any). If the wrapper method was written in VB.NET, it could discover and report the exception that occurred without having to catch and rethrow it. Other patterns would be possible as well. Most usages of the wrapper would involve closures, which are icky, but the wrapper could at least achieve proper semantics.
An alternative wrapper design which would avoid closures, but would require that clients use it correctly and would provide little protection against incorrect usage would have a usage batter like:
var dispRes = new DisposeResult();
...
try
{
.. the following could be in some nested routine which took dispRes as a parameter
using (dispWrap = new DisposeWrap(dispRes, ... other disposable resources)
{
...
}
}
catch (...)
{
}
finally
{
}
if (dispRes.Exception != null)
... handle cleanup failures here
The problem with this approach is that there's no way to ensure that anyone will ever evaluate dispRes.Exception. One could use a finalizer to log cases where dispRes gets abandoned without ever having been examined, but there would be no way to distinguish cases where that occurred because an exception kicked code out beyond the if test, or because the programmer simply forgot the check.
PS--Another case where Dispose really should know whether exceptions occur is when IDisposable objects are used to wrap locks or other scopes where an object's invariants may temporarily be invalidated but are expected to be restored before code leaves the scope. If an exception occurs, code should often have no expectation of resolving the exception, but should nonetheless take action based upon it, leaving the lock neither held nor released but rather invalidated, so that any present or future attempt to acquire it will throw an exception. If there are no future attempts to acquire the lock or other resource, the fact that it is invalid should not disrupt system operation. If the resource is critically necessary to some part of the program, invalidating it will cause that part of the program to die while minimizing the damage it does to anything else. The only way I know to really implement this case with nice semantics is to use icky closures. Otherwise, the only alternative is to require explicit invalidate/validate calls and hope that any return statements within the part of the code where the resource is invalid are preceded by calls to validate.

Maybe some helper function that let you write code similar to using:
void UsingAndLog<T>(Func<T> creator, Action<T> action) where T:IDisposabe
{
T item = creator();
try
{
action(item);
}
finally
{
try { item.Dispose();}
catch(Exception ex)
{
// Log/pick which one to throw.
}
}
}
UsingAndLog(() => new FileStream(...), item =>
{
//code that you'd write inside using
item.Write(...);
});
Note that I'd probably not go this route and just let exceptions from Dispose to overwrite my exceptions from code inside normal using. If library throws from Dispose against strong recommendations not to do so there is a very good chance that it is not the only issue and usefulness of such library need to be reconsidered.

How does code look when you don't use exceptions to control flow?

I've taken the advice I've seen in other answered questions about when to throw exceptions but now my APIs have new noise. Instead of calling methods wrapped in try/catch blocks (vexing exceptions) I have out argument parameters with a collection of errors that may have occurred during processing. I understand why wrapping everything in a try/catch is a bad way to control the flow of an app but I rarely see code anywhere that reflects this idea.
That's why this whole thing seems so strange to me. It's a practice that is supposedly the right way to code but I don't see it anywhere. Added to that, I don't quite understand how to relate to client code when "bad" behavior has occured.
Here's a snippet of some code I'm hacking around with that deals with saving pictures that are uploaded by users of a web app. Don't sweat the details (it's ugly), just see the way I've added these output parameters to everything to get error messages.
public void Save(UserAccount account, UserSubmittedFile file, out IList<ErrorMessage> errors)
{
PictureData pictureData = _loader.GetPictureData(file, out errors);
if(errors.Any())
{
return;
}
pictureData.For(account);
_repo.Save(pictureData);
}
Is this the right idea? I can reasonably expect that a user submitted file is in some way invalid so I shouldn't throw an exception, however I'd like to know what was wrong with the file so I produce error messages. Likewise, any client that now consumes this save method will also want to find out what was wrong with the overall picture saving operation.
I had other ideas about returning some status object that contained a result and additional error messages but that feels weird. I know having out parameters everywhere is going to be hard to maintain/refactor/etc.
I would love some guidance on this!
EDIT: I think the user submitted files snippet may lead people to think of exceptions generated by loading invalid images and other "hard" errors. I think this code snippet is a better illustration of where I think the idea of throwing an exception is being discouraged.
With this I'm just saving a new user account. I do a state validation on the user account and then I hit the persistent store to find out if the username has been taken.
public UserAccount Create(UserAccount account, out IList<ErrorMessage> errors)
{
errors = _modelValidator.Validate(account);
if (errors.Any())
{
return null;
}
if (_userRepo.UsernameExists(account.Username))
{
errors.Add(new ErrorMessage("Username has already been registered."));
return null;
}
account = _userRepo.CreateUserAccount(account);
return account;
}
Should I throw some sort of validation exception? Or should I return error messages?

Despite the performance concerns, I think it's actually cleaner to allow Exceptions to be thrown out of a method. If there are any exceptions that can be handled within your method, you should handle them appropriately, but otherwise, let them bubble up.
Returning errors in out parameters, or returning status codes feels a bit clunky. Sometimes when faced with this situation, I try to imagine how the .NET framework would handle the errors. I don't believe there are many .NET framework methods that return errors in out parameters, or return status codes.

By definition, "exception" means an exceptional circumstance from which a routine cannot recover. In the example you provided, it looks like that means the image was invalid/corrupt/unreadable/etc. That should be thrown and bubbled up to the topmost layer, and there decide what to do with the exception. The exception itself contains the most complete information about what went wrong, which must be available at the upper levels.
When people say you should not use exceptions to control program flow, what they mean is: (for example) if a user tries to create an account but the account already exists, you should not throw an AccountExistsException and then catch it higher up in the application to be able to provide that feedback to the user, because the account already existing is not an exceptional case. You should expect that situation and handle it as part of your normal program flow. If you can't connect to the database, that is an exceptional case.
Part of the problem with your User Registration example is that you are trying to encapsulate too much into a single routine. If your method tries to do more than one thing, then you have to track the state of multiple things (hence things getting ugly, like lists of error messages). In this case, what you could do instead is:
UsernameStatus result = CheckUsernameStatus(username);
if(result == UsernameStatus.Available)
{
CreateUserAccount(username);
}
else
{
//update UI with appropriate message
}
enum UsernameStatus
{
Available=1,
Taken=2,
IllegalCharacters=3
}
Obviously this is a simplified example, but I hope the point is clear: your routines should only try to do one thing, and should have a limited/predictable scope of operation. That makes it easier to halt and redirect program flow to deal with various situations.

I think this is the wrong approach. Yes, it's very likely that you'll get occasional invalid images. But that's still the exceptional scenario. In my opinions, exceptions are the right choice here.

In situations like you have I usually throw a custom exception to the caller. I have a bit of a different view on exceptions maybe than others have: If the method couldn't do what it is intended to do (ie. What the method name says: Create a user account) then it should throw an exception - to me: not doing what you're supposed to do is exceptional.
For the example you posted, I'd have something like:
public UserAccount Create(UserAccount account)
{
if (_userRepo.UsernameExists(account.Username))
throw new UserNameAlreadyExistsException("username is already in use.");
else
return _userRepo.CreateUserAccount(account);
}
The benefit, for me at least, is that my UI is dumb. I just try/catch any function and messagebox the exception message like:
try
{
UserAccount newAccount = accountThingy.Create(account);
}
catch (UserNameAlreadyExistsException unaex)
{
MessageBox.Show(unaex.Message);
return; // or do whatever here to cancel proceeding
}
catch (SomeOtherCustomException socex)
{
MessageBox.Show(socex.Message);
return; // or do whatever here to cancel proceeding
}
// If this is as high up as an exception in the app should bubble up to,
// I'll catch Exception here too
This is similar in style to a lot of System.IO methods (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/d62kzs03.aspx) for an example.
If it becomes a performance problem, then I'll refactor to something else later, but I've never needed to squeeze performance out of a business app because of exceptions.

I would allow for exceptions as well but based on your thread your looking for an alternative. Why not include a status or error information in your PictureData object. You can then just return the object with the errors in it and the other stuff left empty. Just a suggestion, but you are pretty much doing exactly what exceptions were made to solve :)

First off, exceptions should never be used as a control-flow mechanism. Exceptions are an error propagation and handling mechanism, but should never be used to control program flow. Control flow is the domain of conditional statements and loops. That is quite often a critical misconception that many programmers make, and is usually what leads to such nightmares when they try to deal with exceptions.
In a language like C# which offers structured exception handling, the idea is to allow 'exceptional' cases in your code to be identified, propagated, and eventually handled. Handling is generally left to the highest level of your application (i.e. a windows client with a UI and error dialogs, a web site with error pages, a logging facility in the message loop of a background service, etc.) Unlike Java, which uses checked exception handling, C# does not require you to specifically handle every single exception that may pass through your methods. On the contrary, trying to do so would undoubtedly lead to some severe performance bottlenecks, as catching, handling, and possibly re-throwing exceptions is costly business.
The general idea with exceptions in C# is that if they happen...and I stress if, because they are called exceptions due to the fact that during normal operation, you shouldn't be encountering any exceptional conditions, ...if they happen then you have the tools at your disposal to safely and cleanly recover and present the user (if there is one) with a notification of the applications failure and possible resolution options.
Most of the time, a well written C# application won't have that many try/catch blocks in core business logic, and will have a lot more try/finally, or better yet, using blocks. For most code, the concern in response to an exception is to recover nicely by releasing resources, locks, etc. and allowing the exception to continue on. In your higher level code, usually in the outer message processing loop of an application or in the standard event handler for systems like ASP.NET, you'll eventually perform your structured handling with a try/catch, possibly with multiple catch clauses to deal with specific errors that need unique handling.
If you are properly handling exceptions and building code that uses exceptions in an appropriate way, you shouldn't have to worry about lots of try/catch/finally blocks, return codes, or convoluted method signatures with lots of ref and out parameters. You should see code more like this:
public void ClientAppMessageLoop()
{
bool running = true;
while (running)
{
object inputData = GetInputFromUser();
try
{
ServiceLevelMethod(inputData);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// Error occurred, notify user and let them recover
}
}
}
// ...
public void ServiceLevelMethod(object someinput)
{
using (SomeComponentThatsDisposable blah = new SomeComponentThatsDisposable())
{
blah.PerformSomeActionThatMayFail(someinput);
} // Dispose() method on SomeComponentThatsDisposable is called here, critical resource freed regardless of exception
}
// ...
public class SomeComponentThatsDisposable: IDosposable
{
public void PErformSomeActionThatMayFail(object someinput)
{
// Get some critical resource here...
// OOPS: We forgot to check if someinput is null below, NullReferenceException!
int hash = someinput.GetHashCode();
Debug.WriteLine(hash);
}
public void Dispose()
{
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
// Clean up critical resource if its not null here!
}
}
By following the above paradigm, you don't have a lot of messy try/catch code all over, but your still "protected" from exceptions that otherwise interrupt your normal program flow and bubble up to your higher-level exception handling code.
EDIT:
A good article that covers the intended use of exceptions, and why exceptions aren't checked in C#, is the following interview with Anders Heijlsberg, the chief architect of the C# language:
http://www.artima.com/intv/handcuffsP.html
EDIT 2:
To provide a better example that works with the code you posted, perhaps the following will be more useful. I'm guessing at some of the names, and doing things one of the ways I've encountered services implemented...so forgive any license I take:
public PictureDataService: IPictureDataService
{
public PictureDataService(RepositoryFactory repositoryFactory, LoaderFactory loaderFactory)
{
_repositoryFactory = repositoryFactory;
_loaderFactory = loaderFactory;
}
private readonly RepositoryFactory _repositoryFactory;
private readonly LoaderFactory _loaderFactory;
private PictureDataRepository _repo;
private PictureDataLoader _loader;
public void Save(UserAccount account, UserSubmittedFile file)
{
#region Validation
if (account == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("account");
if (file == null) throw new ArgumentNullException("file");
#endregion
using (PictureDataRepository repo = getRepository())
using (PictureDataLoader loader = getLoader())
{
PictureData pictureData = loader.GetPictureData(file);
pictureData.For(account);
repo.Save(pictureData);
} // Any exceptions cause repo and loader .Dispose() methods
// to be called, cleaning up their resources...the exception
// bubbles up to the client
}
private PictureDataRepository getRepository()
{
if (_repo == null)
{
_repo = _repositoryFactory.GetPictureDataRepository();
}
return _repo;
}
private PictureDataLoader getLoader()
{
if (_loader == null)
{
_loader = _loaderFactory.GetPictureDataLoader();
}
return _loader;
}
}
public class PictureDataRepository: IDisposable
{
public PictureDataRepository(ConnectionFactory connectionFactory)
{
}
private readonly ConnectionFactory _connectionFactory;
private Connection _connection;
// ... repository implementation ...
public void Dispose()
{
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
_connection.Close();
_connection = null; // 'detatch' from this object so GC can clean it up faster
}
}
public class PictureDataLoader: IDisposable
{
// ... Similar implementation as PictureDataRepository ...
}

What's a good way for a c# dll to return error to the calling application?

i'm writing a dll which is a wrapper to a access database. and i'm pretty new to c# in general as my background is in web development LAMP with perl, i'm not sure what's a good way to return error to a calling app in case they pass the wrong parameters to my functions or what not.
I have no idea as of now except to probably do some msgbox or throw some exceptions but i don't know where to start looking. Any help or resources would be more than useful :)
thanks~

You probably don't want to display message dialogs from within your dll, that's the job of the client application, as part of the presentation layer.
.Net library assemblies typically bubble up exceptions to the host application, so that's the approach I'd look at.
public static class LibraryClass
{
public static void DoSomething(int positiveInteger)
{
if (positiveInteger < 0)
{
throw new ArgumentException("Expected a positive number", "positiveInteger");
}
}
}
Then it's up to your host application to handle those exceptions, logging and displaying them as appropriate.
try
{
LibraryClass.DoSomething(-3);
}
catch(ArgumentException argExc)
{
MessageBox.Show("An Error occurred: " + argExc.ToString());
}

Wrong parameters are usually handled by throwing a ArgumentException or one of its subclasses.

You want to throw an exception.
See
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229007.aspx
for the most common framework exceptions, such as ArgumentException and InvalidOperationException. See also
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms229030.aspx

Check out Design Guidelines for Class Library Developers: Error Raising and Handling Guidelines

Dlls generally should not create any kind of UI element to report an error. You can Throw (same meaning as raise) many different kinds of exceptions, or create your own and the calling code (client) can catch and report to the user.
public void MyDLLFunction()
{
try
{
//some interesting code that may
//cause an error here
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
// do some logging, handle the error etc.
// if you can't handle the error then throw to
// the calling code
throw;
//not throw ex; - that resets the call stack
}
}

throw new exception?

What's the essential difference between the two HandleException() methods of Exception Handling Application Block (Ent Lib 4.1)

In the most recent version (4.1, released October 2008) of The Microsoft Enterprise Library's Exception Handling Application Block, there are two HandleException() method signatures, and I am a bit lost on the intent for these, especially since neither the documentation, intellisense, nor the QuickStart apps intimate any meaningful difference.
Here are the two signatures:
bool HandleException(Exception exceptionToHandle, string policyName);
bool HandleException(Exception exceptionToHandle, string policyName, out Exception exceptionToThrow);
All of the examples I have found use the first, as in this example straight out of the XML documentation comments on the actual method:
try
{
Foo();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
if (ExceptionPolicy.HandleException(e, name)) throw;
}
And here, from the same source (the XML doc comments for the method), is an example of using the second:
try
{
Foo();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Exception exceptionToThrow;
if (ExceptionPolicy.HandleException(e, name, out exceptionToThrow))
{
if(exceptionToThrow == null)
throw;
else
throw exceptionToThrow;
}
}
So, my question is, what does using the second one give you that the first does not? This should probably be obvious to me, but my head is a mess today and I don't really want to keep banging my head against the proverbial wall any longer. :)
No speculations, please; I hope to hear from someone that actually knows what they are talking about from experience using this.

If you use a replace handler in the enterprise library config, your replacement exception is returned by means of the second signature .. , out Exception exceptionToThrow).

The main difference between the two method overloads is that
bool HandleException(Exception exceptionToHandle, string policyName);
will throw an exception if the PostHandlingAction is set to ThrowNewException.
Whereas the second method overload:
bool HandleException(Exception exceptionToHandle, string policyName, out Exception exceptionToThrow);
does not throw an exception in that case but instead returns the exception to be rethrown as an out parameter.
Actually, both calls invoke the same core code but the second method overload catches the thrown Exception and returns it to the caller.
So the second overload gives you a bit more control since you could perform some additional logic before throwing. It also standardizes the API in the sense that if you use the second HandleException method with the out parameter Enterprise Library will never intentionally handle your exception and throw it for you. i.e. The first method sometimes throws and sometimes relies on you to rethrow (in the case of NotifyRethrow) but the second method always returns and lets the caller throw/rethrow.

I believe you are not allowed to throw your original exceptions across WCF service boundaries, this is a security feature (really to make sure that sensitive error information is not propagated through the service chain). Therefore a new execption can be created and passed in via the second parameter out Exception exceptionToThrow) and given a specific exception message and type by means of your configuration (enterprise library replace exception). One example of which is:
try
{
throw new InvalidCastException();
}
catch (InvalidCastException ex)
{
Exception ex1;
bool rethrow = ExceptionPolicy.HandleException(ex, "ReplacePolicy1", out ex1);
if (rethrow)
{
throw new FaultException<ApplicationException>((ApplicationException)ex1, ex1.Message);
}
}
Throwing a FaultException (with a Fault contract set up on the WCF operation) prevents the WCF Service from reporting a faulted state error message in your calling application / Service.
Without the second signature i would struggle with error simplification / propagation across WCF service boundries.
Thanks,
Paul.
(mod to code 8/7/09 - correction comment from John, thanks)

Throwing multiple exceptions in .Net/C#

In an application I work on, any business logic error causes an exception to be thrown, and the calling code handles the exception. This pattern is used throughout the application and works well.
I have a situation where I will be attempting to execute a number of business tasks from inside the business layer. The requirement for this is that a failure of one task should not cause the process to terminate. Other tasks should still be able to execute. In other words, this is not an atomic operation. The problem I have is that at the end of the operation, I wish to notify the calling code that an exception or exceptions did occur by throwing an exception. Consider the following psuedo-code snippet:
function DoTasks(MyTask[] taskList)
{
foreach(MyTask task in taskList)
{
try
{
DoTask(task);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
log.add(ex);
}
}
//I want to throw something here if any exception occurred
}
What do I throw? I have encountered this pattern before in my career. In the past I have kept a list of all exceptions, then thrown an exception that contains all the caught exceptions. This doesn't seem like the most elegant approach. Its important to preserve as many details as possible from each exception to present to the calling code.
Thoughts?
Edit: The solution must be written in .Net 3.5. I cannot use any beta libraries, or the AggregateException in .Net 4.0 as mentioned by Bradley Grainger (below) would be a nice solution for collection exceptions to throw.

The Task Parallel Library extensions for .NET (which will become part of .NET 4.0) follow the pattern suggested in other answers: collecting all exceptions that have been thrown into an AggregateException class.
By always throwing the same type (whether there is one exception from the child work, or many), the calling code that handles the exception is easier to write.
In the .NET 4.0 CTP, AggregateException has a public constructor (that takes IEnumerable<Exception>); it may be a good choice for your application.
If you're targeting .NET 3.5, consider cloning the parts of the System.Threading.AggregateException class that you need in your own code, e.g., some of the constructors and the InnerExceptions property. (You can place your clone in the System.Threading namespace inside your assembly, which could cause confusion if you exposed it publicly, but will make upgrading to 4.0 easier later on.) When .NET 4.0 is released, you should be able to “upgrade” to the Framework type by deleting the source file containing your clone from your project, changing the project to target the new framework version, and rebuilding. Of course, if you do this, you need to carefully track changes to this class as Microsoft releases new CTPs, so that your code doesn't become incompatible. (For example, this seems like a useful general-purpose class, and they could move it from System.Threading to System.) In the worst case, you can just rename the type and move it back into your own namespace (this is very easy with most refactoring tools).

Two ways of the top of my head would be either make a custom exception and add the exceptions to this class and throw that the end :
public class TaskExceptionList : Exception
{
public List<Exception> TaskExceptions { get; set; }
public TaskExceptionList()
{
TaskExceptions = new List<Exception>();
}
}
public void DoTasks(MyTask[] taskList)
{
TaskExceptionList log = new TaskExceptionList();
foreach (MyTask task in taskList)
{
try
{
DoTask(task);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
log.TaskExceptions.Add(ex);
}
}
if (log.TaskExceptions.Count > 0)
{
throw log;
}
}
or return true or false if the tasks failed and have a 'out List' variable.
public bool TryDoTasks(MyTask[] taskList, out List<Exception> exceptions)
{
exceptions = new List<Exception>();
foreach (MyTask task in taskList)
{
try
{
DoTask(task);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
exceptions.Add(ex);
}
}
if (exceptions.Count > 0)
{
return false;
}
else
{
exceptions = null;
return true;
}
}

You could create a custom Exception that itself has a collection of Exceptions. Then, in your Catch block, just add it to that collection. At the end of your process, check if the Exception count is > 0, then throw your custom Exception.

You might want to use a BackgroundWorker to do this for you. It automatically captures and presents any exceptions when completed, which you could then throw or log or do whatever with. Also, you get the benefit of multithreading.
The BackgroundWorker is a nice wrapper around delegate's asynchronous programming model.

No super-elegant solution here but a few ideas:
Pass an error-handler function as argument to DoTasks so the user can decide whether to continue
Use tracing to log errors as they occur
Concatenate the messages from the other exceptions in the exception bundle's message