DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL, BUT PLEASE POST YOUR BUG�
RELATED COMMENTS THROUGH THE WEB INTERFACE AVAILABLE AT
<http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34661>.
ANY REPLY MADE TO THIS MESSAGE WILL NOT BE COLLECTED AND�
INSERTED IN THE BUG DATABASE.

http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=34661





------- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED]  2005-06-12 05:21 -------
(In reply to comment #32)
> 1) Invocation of constructor in createLogFromClass

I think this should be fixed in LogKitLogger rather than in LogFactoryImpl.

The issue is telling the difference between a logging implementation *not being
available* and the logging implementation being available but broken. When the
logging impl is not available, discovery should continue. But I think that when
it is available but broken we should throw an exception rather than mysteriously
redirecting output to another logging implementation.

It's difficult to tell these apart, but I would suggest specifying (in the Log
interface javadoc) that a NoClassDefFound or an ExceptionInInitializerError
should indicate "not available" while an InvocationTargetException indicates
available-but-broken. This is the approach that I took with Jdk14Logger, where
there is a dummy variable that forces an ExceptionInInitializerError if
java.util.logging.Level is not available. I expect a similar thing could be done
with LogKitLogger...

Thoughts?

> 
> 2) Main try/catch block in createLogFromClass specifically catches and 
> rethrows
> LCE.  Otherwise LCE thrown by handleFlawedHierarchy will needlessly be wrapped
> by another LCE in the final "catch Throwable" block.

Well spotted. I'll commit this ASAP

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the assignee for the bug, or are watching the assignee.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to