Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 85861 invoked from network); 31 May 2005 05:49:59 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 31 May 2005 05:49:59 -0000 Received: (qmail 6168 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2005 05:49:56 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-jakarta-commons-dev-archive@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 6100 invoked by uid 500); 31 May 2005 05:49:56 -0000 Mailing-List: contact commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Unsubscribe: List-Help: List-Post: List-Id: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Reply-To: "Jakarta Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Received: (qmail 6086 invoked by uid 99); 31 May 2005 05:49:55 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=10.0 tests=NO_REAL_NAME X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received: from ajax-1.apache.org (HELO ajax.apache.org) (192.87.106.226) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.28) with ESMTP; Mon, 30 May 2005 22:49:53 -0700 Received: by ajax.apache.org (Postfix, from userid 99) id B22D6180; Tue, 31 May 2005 07:49:50 +0200 (CEST) From: bugzilla@apache.org To: commons-dev@jakarta.apache.org Subject: DO NOT REPLY [Bug 34661] - [logging][PATCH] Improvements to LogFactoryImpl X-Bugzilla-Reason: AssignedTo Message-Id: <20050531054950.B22D6180@ajax.apache.org> Date: Tue, 31 May 2005 07:49:50 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG� RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT . ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND� INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE. http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34661 ------- Additional Comments From skitching@apache.org 2005-05-31 07:49 ------- I still don't understand that bit with the else around the log4j discovery. If someone has specified an explicit logclass, ie if (specifiedLogClassName != null) is true then surely: * we create an instance of the specified class and return it, or * we fail with an exception I don't think we should *ever* fall back to discovery mode if specifiedLogClassName is not null. So I would write this: if (specifiedLogClassName != null) { try { // note: createLogClass never returns null.. result = createLogClass(...); return result; } catch(LogConfigurationException ex) { // this type of exception means we've alread output diagnostics // about this issue, etc.; just pass it on throw ex; } catch(Throwable t) { // log problem, and potentially throw an exception if the user // doesn't want recovery from flawed discovery handleFlawedDiscovery(..); // even if configuration info states that we should recover from // flawed logging classes, we *never* recover from a flawed log // which was explicitly specified by the user... throw new LogConfigurationException(t); } // this if-statement never exits! } // test for log4j try { result = ..... -- Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: commons-dev-unsubscribe@jakarta.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: commons-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org