Vincent Massol wrote:
> On Nov 21, 2008, at 2:51 AM, Sergiu Dumitriu wrote:
>
>> vmassol (SVN) wrote:
>>> + getLogger().debug("The [" +
>>> macroHolder.macroBlock.getName() + "] macro doesn't support inline
>>> mode.");
>>> + getLogger().debug("Failed to execute macro [" +
>>> macroHolder.macroBlock.getName() + "]. Internal error ["
>>> + + e.getMessage() + "]");
>>> getLogger().debug("Failed to locate macro [" +
>>> macroBlock.getName() + "]. Ignoring it.");
>> You should use the new formatting logger methods, like:
>>
>> getLogger().debug("Failed to locate macro [{0}]. Ignoring it.",
>> macroBlock.getName());
>
> Can you remind me what are the advantages since I see 2 drawbacks:
> * the log message becomes harder to write and read since you need to
> mentally map the numbers with the parameters
Heh, I thought the opposite, that having to walk past parameters to
reconstruct the message is harder. I guess that for fewer parameter and
smaller parameter retrieval code it is better like this, but I really
get confused when I have to read long log messages.
> * If you have single quote in debug messages it'll fail (in message
> formats you must always use '' (two single quotes) to display a single
> single quote. I've been bitten by this in the past.
Yes, but generally we don't use quotes in message formats.
> Note that performance don't matter at all for logging errors.
>
> One advantage I'd see is to for i18n, However I don't think we want to
> internationalize error messages.
Agreed, we already decided not to translate errors.
> I'm not against using this. I just want to be sure we have a good
> rationale before we start converting systematically all our logs to it.
--
Sergiu Dumitriu
http://purl.org/net/sergiu/
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
