Hi T. J., > May I agree, wholeheartedly? > > From my own long years of dealing with users (some of them very angry), > I conclude that the *error* is what bothers them, not the error > *message*. They just want to get their work done. A little techno-babble > is only a small point. > ... > Consider the opposite case, where user and programmer are _under_whelmed > by lack of information. A real case: > > Line 1: "Error saving the document " filename ":" > Line 2: "Error writing file." > > I would *kill* for a little techno-babble here (for once, I get to wear > the "angry user" hat). Then I could report the bug, with a chance that > somebody could fix it, even without a reproducible case.
Okay, I see your point here. I am still not convinced that transporting the information via css.Exception.Message is the best idea ever, and won't cause problems later on, but I definitely see your point. > Logging errors is an excellent idea. Keeping such logs short enough to > avoid burdening the file system, or performance, but long enough to be > useful, is only a small problem, with several possible solutions. But > logging is a longer-term enhancement, No. Logging facilities are available, and the same script which produces a "add file/line info to exceptions" patch could equally easily produce a "add logger calls" patch. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [email protected] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
