I can get on board with that model I suppose. What we talked about long ago was an event listener model for knowing what's going on internally with a library. These events could be delivered asynchronously from the calls coming from an application. On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:03 AM sebb <seb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10 June 2016 at 11:55, Torsten Curdt <tcu...@vafer.org> wrote: > >> > >> But I guarantee that there will be other discussions: > >> Wouldn't you add an "error" method to "Console"? > >> And there we go again... > > > > > > Not quite the same discussions though. > > And I was just saying: it works for me. > > > > As a side note: I personally think libraries should return errors - not > log > > them. The error logging should happen in the app - not the library. If > you > > have to log errors in the framework there is a good chance your API is > not > > how it should be. > > +1 > > Only the app can decide what an error means in the context of the app, > so only the app can log a sensible error message. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org > >
