mina-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Adam Fisk"...@littleshoot.org>
Subject Re: Is the ExceptionMonitor usefull ?
Date Mon, 07 Jul 2008 19:43:18 GMT
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!

All the Best,
-Adam


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
View raw message