On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 08:14:12 -0500 "Howard M. Lewis Ship" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
If you want to the server to fail on any HiveMind error, then create a Logger that does so.
I guess I don't get when you would ever want fail and continue in production. At least on the service level. If your service failed to initialzie correctly, why would you want to use it?
The problem with J2EE is a lack of flexibility: part of that is the fail-on-any-error ethos.
I think you mean fail on any unhandled exception. Java's try {} catch () {} handles anticpated exceptions quite nicely. If an exception gets all the way up the stack, ususlally it means something external is not working, like a db, and your code have a way to respond.
During DEVELOPMENT you want to fail-and-continue. You should not go to PRODUCTION with any errors.
This is the point of integeration, rather than unit, testing: to ensure that all such errors have
been weeded out. Generally, when you hit high code coverage numbers, then you are there.
But all of the development, unit testing, and integration cannot help if my DBA decides to take down the database that has my shipping information in production. Your analogy does not apply to runtime errors.
Earlier versions of HiveMind did not have fail-and-continue. Then I added a switch so I could get
more of the system debugged. Eventually, I realized that fail-and-continue should just be the norm.
I guess I need to understand the underlying philosophy of why fail-and-contine is ever desired in production. I see the thinking for development, kinda.
--
Howard M. Lewis Ship
Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components http://howardlewisship.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Benjamin Tomasini [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, March 25, 2004 7:58 PM
To: Jakarta Commons Developers List
Subject: RE: [HiveMind] Force loading of Services
You will see errors in LOG.error, but not in the form of an exception. Which, IMO, is kinda dangerous as you get half-baked services. Specifically,
1. <set-service> in BuilderFactory can fail and the end result is that
you get a null for that dependancy - though the service is not null.
2. Initializable.initializeService() does not throw an exception.
I do think it is counter-productive to have the option to pre-load
services. It seems like that misses the point of HiveMind. But... in
light of the two issues above, the reality is that we only have
LOG.error to tell us of the error, and I may want to know ASAP if any of
these error occurred. Lesser of two evils? Dunno.
On Wed, 2004-03-24 at 12:24, Howard M. Lewis Ship wrote:
> I'm unconvinced this is necessary. I would tend to think that it is counter-productive. With late
> building of services (behind proxies), you will see error messages related to the construction of a
> service just where methods are first invoked on it. With the discussion of forced loading of
> services, you will see all errors for all services in one ungainly clump.
> > --
> Howard M. Lewis Ship
> Independent J2EE / Open-Source Java Consultant
> Creator, Tapestry: Java Web Components > http://howardlewisship.com
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Christian Essl [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 5:49 AM
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: [HiveMind] Force loading of Services
> > > > > > A few days ago Benjamin had mainly the complain about the > > current service > > handling, that problems in the service construction may arise > > very late > > during runtime. While we discussed very lenghty why this is > > so in Hivemind > > I somehow share his whishes that it should be possible to get > > an exception > > either at Registry build time or at first access for at least special > > marked services.
> > > > Maybe it could help if the Registry had a method > > getLoadedService() this > > method would instruct (via the ServiceExtensionPoint) the > > Model to load a > > deffered Proxy. An alternative would be to add to the services a > > mixin-interface which has a load() method and would just load > > the proxy.
> > > > To enable checking at Registry build time > > service-implementations could be > > marked to be loaded at start-up. This could happen with an > > extra attribute > > 'load-at-startup'. Again an alternative would be to have start-levels > > (OSGi like). This would also help to start timers etc.
> > > > -- > > Christian Essl > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Benjamin Tomasini
NetEverything, Inc.
1-877-270-1391
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
