Use of catching/throwing is primarily for use in catching/throwing exceptions without any additional information that can't be obtained from the logger call. Basically, there are no calls like logger.error(e) for when you want to log just the exception, so instead you could use logger.catching(e). If you want to add more information, you should use the error/warn/etc. methods instead as you thought.
On 24 August 2014 03:31, Aristedes Maniatis <[email protected]> wrote: > Congratulations on the version 2 release. It looks great. A question > though about the recommended way to use the new 'catching syntax. We used > to do this: > > catch (Exception e ) { > logger.warn("Failed to import report: " + path, e); > > But now the new lifecycle syntax has some advantages. We can do this: > > catch (Exception e ) { > logger.catching(e); > > But it would be useful for me to log the path which ultimately caused the > exception. Except that I cannot do this: > > catch (Exception e ) { > logger.catching("Failed to import report: {}", path, e); > > > What is the recommended approach here? Avoid the lifecycle style syntax? > Call the logger twice, once with my message and variable and once with the > exception? > > > Thanks > Ari > > > -- > --------------------------> > Aristedes Maniatis > GPG fingerprint CBFB 84B4 738D 4E87 5E5C 5EFA EF6A 7D2E 3E49 102A > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > -- Matt Sicker <[email protected]>
