drill-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Daniel Barclay (Drill) (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Created] (DRILL-2626) org.apache.drill.common.StackTrace seems to have duplicate code; should we re-use Throwable's code?
Date Mon, 30 Mar 2015 18:03:53 GMT
Daniel Barclay (Drill) created DRILL-2626:
---------------------------------------------

             Summary: org.apache.drill.common.StackTrace seems to have duplicate code; should
we re-use Throwable's code?
                 Key: DRILL-2626
                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DRILL-2626
             Project: Apache Drill
          Issue Type: Bug
            Reporter: Daniel Barclay (Drill)


It seems that class org.apache.drill.common.StackTrace needlessly duplicates code that's already
in the JDK.

In particular, it has code to format the stack trace.  That seems at least mostly redundant
with the formatting code already in java.lang.Throwable.

StackTrace does have a comment about eliminating the StackTrace constructor from the stack
trace.  However, StackTrace does _not_ actuallly eliminate its contructor from the stack trace
(e.g., its stack traces start with "org.apache.drill.common.StackTrace.<init>:...").


Should StackTrace be implemented by simply subclassing Throwable?  

That would eliminate StackTrace's current formatting code (which would also eliminate the
difference between StackTrace's format and the standard format).

That should also eliminate having the StackTrace constructor's stack frame show up in the
stack trace.  (Throwable's constructor/fillInStackTrace already handles that.)

(Having "StackTrace extends Throwable" isn't ideal, since StackTrace is not intended to be
a kind of exception, but that would probably be better than the current form, given the bugs
StackTrace has/has had (DRILL-xxxxx, DRILL-xxxx).

That non-ideal subclassing could be eliminated by having a member variable of type Throwable
that is constructed during StackTrace's construction, although that would either cause the
StackTrace constructor to re-appear in the stack trace or require a non-trivial workaround
to re-eliminate it.

Perhaps client code should simply use "new Throwable()" to capture the stack trace and a static
methods on a utility class to format the stack trace into a String.)





--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message