Why customize application exception this way?

Question

hi
i found too different ways to customize a same application exception
they actually work the same way but with a little difference that i can not figure out why
the first one is
public class BaseAppException extends Exception {
    static final long serialVersionUID = -5829545098534135052L;
     * the message of the BaseAppException.
    private String exceptionMessage;
     * A public constructor for BaseAppException containing no arguments.
    public BaseAppException() {
     * A public constructor for BaseAppException specifying exception message.
     * <p>
     * @param msg
     *            exception message.
    public BaseAppException(String msg) {
        this.exceptionMessage = msg;
    }it uses a private member "exceptionMessage" to store the exception message
and here is the second piece of code
public class BaseAppException extends Exception {
    static final long serialVersionUID = -5829545098534135052L;
     * A public constructor for BaseAppException containing no arguments.
    public BaseAppException() {
     * A public constructor for BaseAppException specifying exception message.
     * <p>
     * @param msg
     *            exception message.
    public BaseAppException(String msg) {
         super(msg);
//        this.exceptionMessage = msg;
    }this one passes the message to the base throwable
both works but i am wondering why define a private string memeber for message storing and not pass it to the base throwable??

Answer 1

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here, but at
first glance "TestK t = new TestK();" inside the for
loop seemed unusual.
If you place it before the loop it works fine.I guess what he is trying to ask is that why is that if you use the new operator in the code, you donot get the exception while if you dont use it you do get one. While in any case either you use it or not you are supposed to get a new String as per the String API.
Well thats an interesting observation and I have no explanation as to why is this happening. I do remember that thread where somebody pointed this out as a use of the String(String original) construtor. Furtehr adding on to that the API states about this constructor the following
Initializes a newly created String object so that it represents the same sequence of characters as the argument; in other words, the newly created string is a copy of the argument string.
so I donot get why not using it would cause the exception to be thrown. I have tested the code though and it seems to behave as pointed in the original post.
Interesting question though, food for thought.