Re[2]: [Fortress] Minimizing stack traces on startup.

[Anton Tagunov <at...@mail.cnt.ru>]

Hello Leif!

LM> The stack traces are obviously invaluable during development and even
LM> for debugging problems in a deployed application.
LM> But they also need to be invisible to the end users.

LM> I usually do this on a component level by only showing stack traces at the
LM> debug priority.

Very interesting!

What I do, I have a number of expected exceptions that I know
I won't need a stack trace for (f.e. ConfigurationException)
and do it like this

        try{
            FortressConfig fortressConfig = ...;
            DefaultContainerManager containerManager = ...;
            containerManager.initialize();
            return (Foo) containerManager.getContainer();
        }
        catch( Fatal f )
        {
            /**
             * This is the exception that is thrown if error
             * has alredy been logged
             */
            return null;
        }
        /**
         * Now we'll enumerate the exceptions for which we want
         * only the message and no stack trace.
         */
        catch( ConfigurationException ce )
        {
            /* this in effect is just
             * m_logger.log( message )
             */
            fatal( ce.getMessage() );
            return null;
        }
        catch( LinkageError le )
        {
            fatal( le.toString() );
            return null;
        }
        catch( Throwable t )
        {
            /**
             * We did not expect this error - we need a stack trace.
             */
            fatal( "Initialization failed", t );
            return null;
        }

Which approach is more powerfull?

LM> Would that be an option worth considering for the
LM> container as well?

I know you've been asking Berin, but you have also
given me some thinking food.. Don't know ATM.

- Anton


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

Re: [Fortress] Minimizing stack traces on startup.

[Peter Royal <pr...@apache.org>]

On Thursday, June 12, 2003, at 12:29  AM, Leif Mortenson wrote:
> Rather than this:
> getLogger().error( msg, e );
>
> I do this:
> getLogger().error( msg + " : " + e.getMessage() );
> getLogger().debug( "Stack Trace:", e );
>
> Or something along those lines.  It really depends on the context.

You've found that that approach works better than having a "user" log 
that doesn't include stack-traces in the formatter and a "dev" log that 
does?
-pete


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org

Re: [Fortress] Minimizing stack traces on startup.

[Leif Mortenson <le...@tanukisoftware.com>]

Rather than this:
getLogger().error( msg, e );

I do this:
getLogger().error( msg + " : " + e.getMessage() );
getLogger().debug( "Stack Trace:", e );

Or something along those lines.  It really depends on the context.

Cheers,
Leif

Anton Tagunov wrote:

>Hello Leif!
>
>LM> The stack traces are obviously invaluable during development and even
>LM> for debugging problems in a deployed application.
>LM> But they also need to be invisible to the end users.
>
>LM> I usually do this on a component level by only showing stack traces at the
>LM> debug priority.
>
>Very interesting!
>
>What I do, I have a number of expected exceptions that I know
>I won't need a stack trace for (f.e. ConfigurationException)
>and do it like this
>



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@avalon.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@avalon.apache.org