If I understand you right, your suggestion is to add: error(Throwable t) I don't see a reason why this cannot happen... We just should not remove methods to keep bc, but adding should not be a problem
Cheers! Christian On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 8:09 PM, Rich Midwinter <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi > > > I note that the following methods exist: > > error(Object message) > > error(Object message, Throwable t) > > > But this one does not: > > error(Throwable t) > > > Although it's absence is implied by the following JavaDoc on the first > method I referred to: > > WARNING Note that passing a Throwable to this method will print the name of > the Throwable but no stack trace. To print a stack trace use > the error(Object, Throwable) form instead. > > > Is there a reason I've overlooked to avoid adding a method that just takes a > throwable? It's quite frustrating to find out in production that someone's > overlooked this and we've lost a stack trace. The fix often just passes in > t.getMessage() anyway. > > > Thanks > > Rich > > -- http://www.grobmeier.de https://www.timeandbill.de --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
