Well - I saw "hold everything" and then that was followed by "we need proper
documentation". So I got the impression this was going to be a documentation
change, not a code change (except, I suppose to fix the handleExceptions
variable). But you made the change and it isn't worth the trouble to change it
back (or to some other variable name next week when someone complains they
don't like ignoreExceptions).
Ralph
On Jul 20, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
> Well, first, my main intent for this whole thing was consistency. We have
> consistency now.
>
> In the message you reference, I said that I could see how ignoreExceptions
> could also be somewhat confusing (due to the dictionary meaning of ignore),
> but also said that no matter what we did it would need to be documented
> clearly (which it is now, by the way). I didn't say I liked suppress better
> (I don't). At least two of the other guys agreed that ignore was still better
> than suppress due to the Java feature of suppressed exceptions, so having
> heard nothing else for a couple of days I proceeded.
>
> Nick
>
> On Jul 20, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>
>> I'm confused. With your message on the 18th I thought you had changed your
>> mind and agreed that "suppressExceptions" was a better choice than
>> "ignoreExceptions" since it more accurately describes what is being done.
>>
>> Ralph
>>
>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 2:58 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
>>
>>> The conversion from
>>> "handleExceptions"/"suppressExceptions"/"isExceptionSuppressed" to
>>> "ignoreExceptions" has been completed.
>>>
>>> I still have some work to do to make sure these are being used/abided by
>>> consistently and to make sure that all appenders and managers really do let
>>> exceptions propagate.
>>>
>>> Nick
>>>
>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 3:57 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah - that seems to work.
>>>>
>>>> Ralph
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You left out the exclamation point.
>>>>>
>>>>> If value of "junk" is specified and the defaultValue is true then
>>>>> (!"false".equalsIgnoreCase("junk") && true) returns true.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, it should actually be (defaultValue &&
>>>>> !"false".equalsIgnoreCase(s)) so that it short-circuits it defaultValue
>>>>> is false.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nick
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 3:30 PM, Ralph Goers wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Why does this not look right to me? If a value of "junk" is specified
>>>>>> and the defaultValue is true then ("false".equalsIgnoreCase("junk") &&
>>>>>> true) return false, which is incorrect. It should just return the
>>>>>> default value.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ralph
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 1:18 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correction below:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jul 20, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Finally got back to working on this. Noticed two things:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 1) On some appenders, ignoreExceptions/suppressExceptions defaults to
>>>>>>>> true. On other ones it defaults to false. We should be consistent in
>>>>>>>> this, and IMO it should default to true. Does anyone have any
>>>>>>>> objection to that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 2) o.a.l.l.core.helpers.Booleans.parseBoolean may or may not be
>>>>>>>> working as expected, so I wanted to check with y'all. Here's the code:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> return Strings.isEmpty(s) ? defaultValue : Boolean.parseBoolean(s);
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boolean.parseBoolean() doesn't have a way to specify a default value.
>>>>>>>> It automatically defaults to false if the value passed in is anything
>>>>>>>> other than "true." So, if someone passes in a non-empty value other
>>>>>>>> than "true" or "false", it will always return false even if
>>>>>>>> defaultValue is true. I propose changing it to this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> return "true".equalsIgnoreCase(s) || defaultValue;
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> return "true".equalsIgnoreCase(s) || (!"false".equalsIgnoreCase(s) &&
>>>>>>> defaultValue);
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Does anyone have any problem with that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 8:12 PM, Gary Gregory wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 20:28, Paul Benedict <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Proper documentation" is the key phrase. :-)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes! :)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Gary
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Nick Williams
>>>>>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Okay. Hold everything! Lol...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I started working on this change and then realized something.
>>>>>>>>>> "Suppress" means "to forcibly put an end to," "restrain," or
>>>>>>>>>> "prevent the development, action, or expression of." However,
>>>>>>>>>> "ignore" means "refuse to take notice of or acknowledge; disregard
>>>>>>>>>> intentionally" or "fail to consider (something significant)."
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Though not guaranteed, I can see how a user would mistake the word
>>>>>>>>>> "ignore" to mean that exceptions aren't even logged, while
>>>>>>>>>> "suppress" would be more obvious to mean they aren't thrown (but
>>>>>>>>>> also confusing with Java suppressed exceptions as others pointed
>>>>>>>>>> out). I don't think it's a big deal because no matter what we do
>>>>>>>>>> we're going to have to properly document this field. But I just
>>>>>>>>>> wanted to make sure everyone had thought about this before we
>>>>>>>>>> proceeded.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nick
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On Jul 18, 2013, at 6:58 PM, Nick Williams wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> > 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]
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>>>>> Paul
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
