Mailing-List: contact dev-help@creadur.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@creadur.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of david.blevins@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.215.49 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51517135.80807@blueyonder.co.uk>
References: <51517135.80807@blueyonder.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2013 19:00:50 +0100
Message-ID: 
 <CAPBQWz+KbNk9rNOZUS6pQT9FSMTowRRtKnBAZXwHOUC6QbwkYg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [tentacles] assertions
From: David Blevins <david.blevins@gmail.com>
To: dev@creadur.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Robert Burrell Donkin
<robertburrelldonkin@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> Tentacles is a little unusual in using Java assertions. When assertions are
> off, then [1] no longer works as expected (rather than running with
> debugging checks off).
>
> For applications in runnable jars, I think using assertions to allow
> debugging is a cool idea - controlling logging levels is sometimes tricky in
> this situation. However - by the principle of least surprise - when on the
> golden path, I think tentacles should function correctly whether assertions
> are on or off.
>
> Opinions?

Totally agree.  I've never once remembered to turn them on, have
always ran into the issue of the dir not getting created, and *then*
remembered about assertions needing to be on.

And I wrote the stinking code.

I rarely used assertions before and have completely stopped using them
since.  It's a clear no-no for code that must run, and really, who
wants even their checks to be optional?

Feel free to hack it up.

Side note, wow I didn't know anyone but be had ever used tentacles :)

-David