that's the whole point. if you want to add a string representation of a
stack trace to another string, you need this method. Throwable.toString()
does not work. you need to say "my exception = " +
Strings.toString(exception).
Johan Compagner wrote:
>
> ahh sorry i meant printStackTrace() (and toString)
>
> johan
>
>
> On 5/31/07, Jonathan Locke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> that was a couple days ago. i will let you know if i repro.
>>
>> the normal toString() does not give you the complete exception. it just
>> gives
>> you just the message string (see Throwable.java):
>>
>> public String toString() {
>> String s = getClass().getName();
>> String message = getLocalizedMessage();
>> return (message != null) ? (s + ": " + message) : s;
>> }
>>
>> this was the original point of Strings.toString(Throwable)... to give you
>> the complete trace for an exception object.
>>
>>
>> Johan Compagner wrote:
>> >
>> > 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.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>>
>> --
>> View this message in context:
>> http://www.nabble.com/abbreviated-stack-traces-tf3837742.html#a10899655
>> 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#a10900623
Sent from the Wicket - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
