Okay. I'll proceed with the change.

Nick

On Jul 18, 2013, at 2:08 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:

> First, I appreciate having the discussion before a code change like this is 
> made. If that had been done I probably would have vetoed it.  But this is the 
> ASF where everybody gets a single voice and a single vote. Although I dislike 
> this change and the effect it will have on my users I won't veto it if that 
> is what the majority wants.
> 
> Ralph
> 
> On Jul 18, 2013, at 11:06 AM, Nick Williams wrote:
> 
>> Hmmm. So it sounds like we're at an impasse. Everyone except Ralph seems to 
>> agree to renaming it ignoreExceptions, bug Ralph said the below in 
>> opposition. Ralph, can you clarify a little? Are you objecting to just 
>> renaming the XML/JSON attribute (which, really, is the only thing that would 
>> break your teams' configurations)? Or are you objecting to ignoreExceptions 
>> completely? I can't tell whether you're okay with the isExceptionSuppressed 
>> method being renamed.
>> 
>> I would just throw it out there that, while I understand that it would be 
>> inconvenient to have to modify all your configurations, this IS beta 
>> software. It is not GA yet (hopefully next month or so). Anyone who uses 
>> beta software does so with the understanding that there could be breaking 
>> changes before GA. If you didn't want to take that risk, I respectively 
>> submit that you shouldn't have used beta software in production. I'm not 
>> saying, "You're wrong." I'm just questioning the motives behind your 
>> opposition. In short:
>> 
>> If we all agree that ignoreExceptions is a better name that 
>> suppressExceptions (inconvenience aside), now is the time to change it. We 
>> can't after GA.
>> 
>> Now I'm not sure how to proceed. :-P
>> 
>> Nick
>> 
>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 1:02 AM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>> 
>>> I do not have a problem with renaming handleExceptions to 
>>> exceptionSuppressed.  I do have a problem with renaming supressExceptions 
>>> to ignoreExceptions, primarily because I have a bunch of teams using Log4j 
>>> 2 in production and they would have to modify their configurations when 
>>> they upgrade.  Furthermore, I can't in my wildest dreams imagine anyone 
>>> getting confused over this parameter and suppressed Throwables.
>>> 
>>> FWIW - handleExceptions means that the Appender "handles" the exception 
>>> (i.e. it is suppressed).  I don't recall why the variables don't match - I 
>>> think I might have originally exposed "handleExceptions" and found that to 
>>> be ambiguous and renamed the config param but not the internal variable.
>>> 
>>> Ralph
>>> 
>>> On Jul 17, 2013, at 2:42 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Appender specifies a method, isExceptionSuppressed(), which indicates 
>>>> whether exceptions thrown while appending events should be suppressed 
>>>> (logged instead of re-thrown).
>>>> 
>>>> AbstractAppender implements this method with a private handleExceptions 
>>>> field and a handleExceptions constructor argument. isExceptionSuppressed() 
>>>> returns handleExceptions (so, supposedly, "handle exceptions" means "take 
>>>> care of exceptions instead of the user having to take care of exceptions").
>>>> 
>>>> Everybody that extends AbstractAppender uses the same handleExceptions 
>>>> constructor argument. They all define a suppressExceptions XML attribute 
>>>> that is assigned to the handleExceptions constructor argument in the 
>>>> static plugin factory method.
>>>> 
>>>> This is all very confusing to me. I just realize that I have misunderstood 
>>>> "handleExceptions" this whole time in the database appenders and have 
>>>> assumed it was the opposite of isExceptionSuppressed() / 
>>>> suppressExceptions (and, thus, have written incorrect code).
>>>> 
>>>> Does anyone have a problem with me renaming handleExceptions to 
>>>> exceptionSuppressed (to match the JavaBean isExceptionSuppressed method) 
>>>> to make this less confusing?
>>>> 
>>>> Nick
>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
>> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to