geronimo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Donald Woods <dwo...@apache.org>
Subject Re: svn commit: r550656 - /geronimo/server/trunk/modules/geronimo-transaction/src/main/java/org/apache/geronimo/transaction/manager/TransactionImpl.java
Date Fri, 29 Jun 2007 13:10:17 GMT
Agree.  I'll update the log statement to include the stack trace.

Thanks for reviewing and commenting on the change.

-Donald

Kevan Miller wrote:
> 
> On Jun 28, 2007, at 12:11 AM, David Jencks wrote:
> 
>>
>> On Jun 26, 2007, at 7:08 PM, Donald Woods wrote:
>>
>>> Was just going on Kevan's response to YunFeng, that we shouldn't be 
>>> using printStackTrace() in the code -
>>>     http://www.nabble.com/Why-printStackTrace%28%29-in-the-source-codes-tf3975719s134.html

>>>
> 
> Heh. Sure... Blame it all on me... ;-)
> 
>>
>> I don't have a problem with logging the stack trace rather than 
>> printing it to the console, but even printStackTrace IMO is not a 
>> really big deal since the exception will only occur when someone has 
>> written a broken integration of something that needs xa.  For instance 
>> I think openejb mdbs are currently broken this way.
> 
> Right. I have no objections to logging stack traces, where we think they 
> would be useful. My main point was that we should be thinking in terms 
> of "logging" information, not "printing". The geronimo log should 
> contain the information needed to identify/diagnose a problem (not a 
> random mixture of logging and direct printing to STDOUT/STDERR).
> 
> --kevan
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message