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 15:53:25 GMT
Updated to log the stack trace as an error in revision 551929.


Donald Woods wrote:
> 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