On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, Christian Grobmeier <[email protected]>wrote:
> 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 > For 1.4? :) Gary > > 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] > > -- E-Mail: [email protected] | [email protected] JUnit in Action, 2nd Ed: http://bit.ly/ECvg0 Spring Batch in Action: http://bit.ly/bqpbCK Blog: http://garygregory.wordpress.com Home: http://garygregory.com/ Tweet! http://twitter.com/GaryGregory <http://twitter.com/GaryGregory>
