why would we have a Strings.toString(Throwable) that gives you everything?
then the normal thing (toString of the exception) just works just as fine.
johan
On 5/31/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It might be good to be more defensive here then (as I think the trace I
got
had lost the info in both places): We could turn Strings.toString
(Throwable)
back into a simple version that always gives you the entire stack trace (I
would really prefer that since this is supposed to be a generic utility).
Then take the fancy version that's in the util package now and make a
private implementation detail of the exception page(s). That way nobody
can
accidentally make the mistake of removing exception information from a log
or the console.
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> the full thing should go into the log
> i can't believe that that strings.toString(throwable) is used for
logging
> thats pure for our page itself i think
>
> johan
>
>
> On 5/31/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> This happened a few days ago, so I don't recall for sure, but I believe
I
>> was missing information from the cause exception which would have
helped
>> me
>> diagnose my problem. There are two things I can think of that might
>> help.
>> We could: 1) take some extra precautions to only remove specific stuff
we
>> know doesn't matter and 2) always print full stack traces to the
>> log/console
>> but put the abbreviated exception in the error page.
>>
>>
>> Johan Compagner wrote:
>> >
>> > Which part do you mis then?
>> > because the root isn't cut of:
>> > sb.append("Root cause:\n\n");
>> > outputThrowable(cause, sb, false); << false is don't stop
>> at
>> > wicket servlet.
>> >
>> > all other causes do stop at the wicket servlet (but those are mostly
>> just
>> > invocation target and so on)
>> >
>> > for all we just skip the: !(traceString.startsWith("sun.reflect.")
>> > so that we don't have all those reflection stacks in it that don't
give
>> > you
>> > any information then you already had.
>> >
>> > johan
>> >
>> >
>> > On 5/30/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> while i like shorter stack traces in some sense, i've run into a
>> couple
>> >> of
>> >> cases where the stack trace being shown by wicket cut out important
>> >> information. could we review the code in Strings.toString
(Throwable)
>> to
>> >> make sure we're really doing the right thing here? i'd rather have
>> too
>> >> much
>> >> stack trace information from wicket than lose a key piece of info at
a
>> >> critical time. unless we can feel really sure we're not cutting out
>> >> important information, i think we ought to err on the safe side.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> View this message in context:
>> >>
>> http://www.nabble.com/abbreviated-stack-traces-tf3837742.html#a10866083
>> >> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/abbreviated-stack-traces-tf3837742.html#a10895556
>> Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>>
>>
>
>
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/abbreviated-stack-traces-tf3837742.html#a10896903
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
