Wouldn't that be ClientAbortException: java.net.SocketException: Broken pipe
-- Varun On Fri, Jul 31, 2015 at 11:39 AM, Carsten Ziegeler <[email protected]> wrote: > I would assume that there is some subclass of IOException thrown in the > cases where the client disconnects. So we could ignore just those? > > Carsten > > Am 30.07.15 um 17:58 schrieb Bertrand Delacretaz: > > Hi, > > > > Since SLING-3498 the SlingMainServlet.service method does this: > > > > try { > > ...do request processing > > } catch (IOException ioe) { > > log.debug("service: Probably client aborted request or any other > > network problem", ioe); > > } catch (Throwable T) { > > log.error(... > > > > The idea was to avoid polluting the logs with IOException caused by > > clients disconnecting prematurely or other network issues. > > > > The problem is that this causes legit IOExceptions throwed by request > > processing code to be logged at the debug level only, so effectively > > hidden on production systems. > > > > What do people think of changing that catch clause to > > > > } catch (IOException ioe) { > > log.error("service: IOException in request processing", ioe); > > > > I think a bit of noise in the logs is better than hiding exceptions > > thrown by application code. > > > > Any better ideas? > > > > -Bertrand > > > > > -- > Carsten Ziegeler > Adobe Research Switzerland > [email protected] >
