+1. Its not hurting anything being there, and unless you know what its for, you will probably not use it.
On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 3:43 PM, Adam Fisk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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! > > All the Best, > -Adam > > > On Mon, Jul 7, 2008 at 1:30 AM, Emmanuel Lecharny <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > 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 Lécharny > > www.iktek.com > > directory.apache.org > > > > > > > > > > -- > http://www.littleshoot.org > Open Source, Open Standards, Open Data >
