Mailing-List: contact tomcat-dev-help@jakarta.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Message-ID: <396735C6.856D429@eng.sun.com>
Date: Sat, 08 Jul 2000 07:08:06 -0700
From: Costin Manolache <costin@eng.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tomcat-dev@jakarta.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bugs/patches - need help
References: <3964FF70.36D073C8@eng.sun.com>
 <20000706095803.K1212@edamame.stinky.com> <39652380.345A8A6F@eng.sun.com>
 <20000707030336.M3199@edamame.stinky.com> <3966177A.1840FF56@eng.sun.com>
 <20000708052953.A1324@edamame.stinky.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


Alex Chaffee wrote:

> > > OK, I'm going through and wiping out all stack traces.  I don't know
> > > how long it will take; I doubt it will be done for 3.2 beta 1.  I've
> >
> > I think the problem is a bit more complex.

> Right, I agree completely. I didn't really mean "wipe out" -- I meant
> "convert literal t.printStackTrace() to loghelper.log("reason", t)"
> where loghelper prints the exception to a log (or to System.err if the
> log is unavailable), and also prints the root cause (which
> printStackTrace does not).  Also, I'm adding in a few.

:-)


> Shall I show you the changes I've made, so you can confirm they're OK
> before I check them in?

No, just check in.

I think the rules are:
- anything can go into main branch, if someone doesn't like it and -1 it - we
roll back the change ( or convince the -1 to become -0 )
- for a release branch, the volunteered release manager decides what goes in
and what doesn't. For most simple bugs or non-dangerous changes ( like that -
I think ) we can probably commit ( and rollback if Sam have any doubt about
the change )

> > The main problem is with exceptions that are frequent and we know
> > what is wrong - BrokenPipe for example. The difficulty consist in
> > filtering BrokenPipe, but to display all other IOExceptions.
> > What we do now is to check for "Broken Pipe" in the message -but that
> > doesn't work in foreign langauges.
> > Right now I don't know any solution for that...
>
> I agree; this is something I keep hoping will be fixed in the next
> version of Java (more, better-defined IO/net sub-exceptions) but never
> seems to happen.

Yes, but we still don't have a solution...

Costin