As one of the primary whiners, I sign up to this idea.

On Thu, May 22, 2008 at 5:43 PM, Daniel Kulp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> In <2.0.4, we logged stack traces for all the exceptions and everyone
> complained about it as they didn't want stack traces for the exceptions they
> were throwing from their implementation as they are rightfully supposed to
> be mapped to faults.   Logs were filling very fast, etc...   Everyone hated
> it.
>
> In 2.0.5 we changed it so all the exceptions thrown from the implementation
> only got a single log line.   However, I think we went too far here.   Most
> likely, we should only do this for CHECKED exceptions.   For the unchecked
> exceptions (like your NPE), we probably need the full stack trace.    I'll
> change the code over to do that.   That should hopefully come closer to
> making everyone happy, or at least a good compromise.  (I hope)
>
> Dan
>
>
>
> On May 22, 2008, at 7:00 AM, John-M Baker wrote:
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> CXF is swallowing exceptions:
>>
>> 22-May-2008 11:59:29 org.apache.cxf.phase.PhaseInterceptorChain
>> doIntercept
>> INFO: Application has thrown exception, unwinding now:
>> java.lang.NullPointerException: null
>>
>> I think it should provide a full stack trace for all throwable exceptiosn,
>> because when they happen in production (which they will!), log levels will
>> be set to INFO and if it's reported as anything else then it is missed.
>>
>>
>> John Baker
>> --
>> Web SSO
>> IT Infrastructure
>> Deutsche Bank London
>>
>> URL:  http://websso.cto.gt.intranet.db.com
>>
>>
>> ---
>>
>> This e-mail may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you
>> are not the intended recipient (or have received this e-mail in error)
>> please notify the sender immediately and delete this e-mail. Any
>> unauthorized copying, disclosure or distribution of the material in this
>> e-mail is strictly forbidden.
>>
>> Please refer to http://www.db.com/en/content/eu_disclosures.htm for
>> additional EU corporate and regulatory disclosures.
>
> ---
> Daniel Kulp
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.dankulp.com/blog
>
>
>
>
>

Reply via email to