mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Alex Karasulu" <akaras...@apache.org>
Subject Re: Is the ExceptionMonitor usefull ?
Date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 20:40:12 GMT
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Adam Fisk <a@littleshoot.org> wrote:

> I'd just like to chime in with a vote for staying focused.  If this is
> not causing problems for people and people are using it, it should
> stay, so I'm also a -1 on making the change.
>
> That said, it's most importantly not a big issue and should be barely
> visible on the priority list.  Getting 2.0 out the door should be the
> overarching focus of MINA right now, and things like this distract
> from that.  I know it's always tempting to tweak code to one's liking
> as you make your way through it, but it's an important temptation to
> resist!
>

That was really well put.  Let's just move on.

Alex


>
>
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <elecharny@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > peter royal wrote:
> >>
> >> 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
> >
> > I see where you are going to. The problem to me is that the current
> > implementation is really not good. First it's not documented correctly,
> or
> > should I say, advertized, so the user have no clue what he will get if he
> > implements the Monitor, second, it's a singleton, a very bad thing in a
> J2EE
> > environment.
> >
> > And as MINA is a framework, I also think that it should always throw an
> > exception, and log something. Simply logging is not, IMO, enough. In
> certain
> > cases, we don't know what will happen if we use the default
> implementation.
> > For instance, you may swallow a OOM exception without doing nothing but
> > logging. Do you think it's a good way to handle such exceptions ?
> >>
> >> .. but the specifics of how i used it aside..
> >
> > I agree.
> >>
> >> i think the idea that it promotes is fine.
> >
> > Well, I'm not on the same line :)
> >>
> >> its not a piece of the codebase that's been causing issues at all :)
> >
> > That, I agree. I just don't like the idea of ExceptionMonitor, at least
> the
> > way it is used in MINA. It's pretty much a thread likely to be dead soon,
> as
> > I don't want to argue forever about a very side element of the project.
> Just
> > wanted to point out an opinion, but don't want to push it to a point we
> have
> > to get a veto from someone :) As far as we get this piece of code
> > self-explanatory in the Javadoc, it's fine...
> >
> > Thanks Peter !
> >
> > --
> > --
> > cordialement, regards,
> > Emmanuel L├ęcharny
> > www.iktek.com
> > directory.apache.org
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>


> --
> http://www.littleshoot.org
> Open Source, Open Standards, Open Data
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message