commons-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Gary Gregory <ggreg...@seagullsw.com>
Subject RE: [lang] Exception stack trace order
Date Thu, 17 Apr 2003 07:41:24 GMT
- Reversing the default stack trace order.

I like the idea of matching the JDK stack trace order. Dealing with two
stack trace formats is not a good thing IMO. When you are dealing with a
large code base that uses 3rd party libraries, Jakarta and others, seing
stacks this way and that way is not pleasant, not that seing one ever is!

+1

Gary

-----Original Message-----
From: scolebourne@btopenworld.com [mailto:scolebourne@btopenworld.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 4:52 AM
To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: [lang] Exception stack trace order

I support:

- Reversing the default stack trace order.

- Having a static flag set on ExceptionUtils/NestableDelegate to reverse
order (back to current setup)

- Using 1.4 getCause as appropriate

- Having the ability to have truncated stack traces (but doesn't some of
this exist in ExceptionUtils?)

Stephen

>  from:    Henri Yandell <bayard@generationjava.com>
> Still trying to put this one to bed. Lots of interesting debate on the
> bugzilla report for this:
> 
> http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=14357
> 
> Steven Caswell, do you have a view on it? You're the most active name
> frequently on the author javadoc for exception.* :)
> Mohan has attached a set of fixes. One definite nice one is that it uses
> the JDK 1.4 getCause method if available.
> 
> Anyone else with a view? Alex seems to have  1'd my suggestion below of
> changing, but also been against it on the bugzilla? ;)
> 
> This is all that's really in the way of Lang 2.0 for us, so getting it
> solved would be nice.
> 
> Hen
> 
> On Sun, 30 Mar 2003, Alex Chaffee / Purple Technology wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Mar 30, 2003 at 12:18:03AM -0500, Henri Yandell wrote:
> > >
> > > As well as the direction, it strikes me that there's another issue.
> > > Whether to show the stack-trace for all exceptions in the list, or to
show
> > > a message for one of them. I think it almost calls for an
ExceptionFormat
> > > object :)
> >
> > You're kidding, but I honestly think that exceptions are an area where
> > model-view separation could be productively applied.  Assert failures
> > are another.  I'm imagining an exception that uses
> > java.text.MessageFormat...
> >
> > > Anyway, our default behaviour should probably match the JDK. I seem to
> > > recall we were in favour of this before, as we disliked the
> > > static-solution suggested by the Bugzilla entry.
> > >
> > > All in favour?
> >
> >  1
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alex Chaffee                               mailto:alex@jguru.com
> > Purple Technology - Code and Consulting    http://www.purpletech.com/
> > jGuru - Java News and FAQs                 http://www.jguru.com/alex/
> > Gamelan - the Original Java site           http://www.gamelan.com/
> > Stinky - Art and Angst                     http://www.stinky.com/
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> >
> >
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org
> 


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

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message