On 2009-12-01, at 5:00 , Neal Gafter wrote: > On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 4:31 AM, Jochen Theodorou <[email protected]> wrote: > Wouldn't it be possible to give an method an attribute so it will no add > that stack frame to the exception? Is there a problem for the VM to do that? > > The .NET platform uses this solution. You put an attribute (the equivalent > to a Java annotation) on the methods that you don't want to appear in the > stack trace, and the VM does the rest.
May I humbly (and maybe somewhat panickedly) suggest retaining an option to override such an annotation? Given some developers' reluctance to volunteer error information already, I dread giving them the tools to suppress and throw out what's already there, in the name of misunderstood information hiding. I realize this is meant for all the "infrastructure" layers (of which Groovy is one), giving focus to the business logic and nicing up the user-petrifying stacktraces you get when e.g. multiple layers of dynamic proxies are involved. But this assumes that the error is never in THAT part, which may only be true after considerable maturing of the code. Anyway, today we have a of getting out the full stacktrace programmatically, so it can be preserved in full when that makes sense. I just want to point out the real need for keeping that as it is. Everyone probably agrees, but - just in case. In the meantime, hacking a nice, custom stacktrace display using said functionality isn't really that hard, either. Sorry for rambling on, I'll go get coffee now. Kjetil -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JVM Languages" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jvm-languages?hl=en.
