Return-Path: 
 <dev-return-32787-apmail-directory-dev-archive=directory.apache.org@directory.apache.org>
Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@www.apache.org
Received: (qmail 32879 invoked from network); 3 Mar 2010 09:13:26 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3)
  by 140.211.11.9 with SMTP; 3 Mar 2010 09:13:26 -0000
Received: (qmail 40854 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2010 09:13:19 -0000
Delivered-To: apmail-directory-dev-archive@directory.apache.org
Received: (qmail 40662 invoked by uid 500); 3 Mar 2010 09:13:19 -0000
Mailing-List: contact dev-help@directory.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:dev-help@directory.apache.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:dev-unsubscribe@directory.apache.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@directory.apache.org>
List-Id: <dev.directory.apache.org>
Reply-To: "Apache Directory Developers List" <dev@directory.apache.org>
Delivered-To: mailing list dev@directory.apache.org
Received: (qmail 40655 invoked by uid 99); 3 Mar 2010 09:13:18 -0000
Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:13:18 +0000
X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.2 required=10.0
	tests=SPF_NEUTRAL
X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Received: from [62.179.121.35] (HELO viefep15-int.chello.at) (62.179.121.35)
    by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 09:13:09 +0000
Received: from edge05.upcmail.net ([192.168.13.212])
          by viefep15-int.chello.at
          (InterMail vM.8.01.02.00 201-2260-120-20100118) with ESMTP
          id
 <20100303091246.PHK14546.viefep15-int.chello.at@edge05.upcmail.net>
          for <dev@directory.apache.org>; Wed, 3 Mar 2010 10:12:46 +0100
Received: from [192.168.1.50] ([84.74.100.246])
	by edge05.upcmail.net with edge
	id oZCk1d05r5JxopQ05ZClBK; Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:12:46 +0100
X-SourceIP: 84.74.100.246
Message-ID: <4B8E280C.1030800@otego.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 10:12:44 +0100
From: Felix Knecht <felix@otego.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
 rv:1.9.1.7) Gecko/20100222 Thunderbird/3.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Apache Directory Developers List <dev@directory.apache.org>
Subject: Exception logging inconsistent ?
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Cloudmark-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=dFTJNr//OApgz790TnY+O6n+VSjuGIjvlcM+aYgYbcs=
 c=1 sm=0 a=4_JgbuvaQF4A:10 a=xe8BsctaAAAA:8 a=-zK0IxrMjhKmc2INerQA:9
 a=dMHyf6BT8BzN-Wlp_H7Hfuyj0FAA:4 a=HpAAvcLHHh0Zw7uRqdWCyQ==:117

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi all

I came across following log/exception [1]:

<snip>
String msg = "RuleId " + ruleId + " not found in ruleId to schema name
map!";
LOG.warn( msg );
throw new NamingException( msg );
</snip>

Wouldn't it be more consistent when logging an error instead of a
warning when afterwards an exception is thrown?

If wanted I can fix when I come across such codings.

Felix

[1]
shared-ldap/src/main/java/org/apache/directory/shared/ldap/schema/registries/DefaultDITStructureRuleRegistry.java
[line 103 ff]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAkuOKAwACgkQ2lZVCB08qHHlVwCdE0+3OcgpNg+bSQKv68BZpUGI
vq0AnieJlkYvLJfKs1oy1fJ7fB7FFOBm
=v+UR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----