On Jul 5, 2008, at 1:36 PM, Emmanuel Lecharny wrote:
- as it's a framework, I think that exceptions, if they are to be caught, should be caught at the upper level, not down in the code. Why the hell do we have to define a generic monitor which does nothing more than logging a warning ?I don't really care to keep it into the code base, I just don't see any of the advantages it brings. I may miss something ... Can you give me a clear exemple, Peter ?
the monitor would allow a user to replace the functionality with one that throws rather than logs.. we just decided that logging is the best policy. we could just make it throw.
in the custom implementation i last used,- if the exception is an InterruptedException, just ignore, but set the interrupted state on the current thread
- certain exception types were ignored, no logging. - certain exceptions were logged at debug - catch-all was similar to what we ship.. but the specifics of how i used it aside.. i think the idea that it promotes is fine. its not a piece of the codebase that's been causing issues at all :)
-pete -- (peter.royal|osi)@pobox.com - http://fotap.org/~osi
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
