On 14/01/2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Siegfried Goeschl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On the downside the current implementation silently drops so many > > exceptions that I feel a bit uncomfortable about it (or to state it more > > clearly I would reject such a code during code review) - so I have no > > final conclusion what to do > > I'm a little confused here. Logging is for me a way to trace what is going on, > including errors, but it is not by itself an error handling system. When I > wrote > that low level components like [exec] must be robust and can avoid logging, I > did not mean exceptions should be dropped.
+1 > If exceptions are currently dropped, then this is a very bad thing and it must > be fixed before graduating from sandbox. Error modes for any component, either > low level or high level, belong to the public API. When an irrecoverable error > occurs, it must be forwarded up and explained in the javadoc. It must also > provide a meaningful (low level) error message with as much information as > possible in case the caller is not able to provide a better medium level error > message. Preserving or changing the exception type or the message is up to the > caller. +1 > I also think that since the caller may decide to display the error > message for end user, it should be localized. However, I remember some people > here do not share this point of view (see thread > http://markmail.org/message/msgyq6gpvhwqvzaa). > > Luc > > > > > +) doing nothing is simple and straight forward > > +) passing a simple logger facade is a way to go but not terribly > > elegant (we call it "edelhack" in German) > > +) I'm not repeating all the other arguments here regarding logging > > frameworks but state that I have no favorite > > > > Cheers, > > > > Siegfried Goeschl > > > > Luc Maisonobe wrote: > > > Siegfried Goeschl wrote: > > > > > >> Because using commons-logging is not undisputed and log4j/jdk logging > > >> would reduce the number of dependencies for a user > > > > > > I agree. Lots of debate have already occured on this subject, and no > > > consensus reached. This simply shows this is a matter of taste, and > > > probably even passion. So there is no point in pushing one choice > > > among the users. I do have a favorite library too, but will neither > > > say what it is nor try to provide any argument for it. > > > > > > Removing a dependency is always a good thing for a library that is > > > intended to be a building bloc for some higher level application. > > > > > > Torsten Curd wrote: > > > > > > > And I would argue that a library should be so robust that (at > > > > least preferably) it does not need any logging at all ...or if there > > > > is a problem you just debug it. > > > > > > I also agree. Commons are quite low level components, they should be > > > as lighweight as possible. They should neither impose some framework > > > to work nor make any assumption on how they will be used. They should > > > be robust and simple enough to not need logging *inside* themselves. > > > > > > Luc > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
