[JBWS-3998] jbossws-cxf - usage of Exception.printStackTrace() instead of logging feature #7
Conversation
|
Thanks for the patch, Ingo. For the log in UDPDestination and CXFHandlerResolverImpl , can you please i18n the log message ? For the tool class, the logger is not initialized for the tool class, and I think we should still use the printStacktrace. |
|
Jim, what do you think of using CXF's LogUtils for the tool classes then? About the i18n messages. I haven't done that because it isn't used. Is the plan to i18n all error messages then? |
|
As for i18n messages, the only thing we could do to improve the "user experience" is saying in the message that the exceptions are actually going to be ignored (the UDPDestination and CXFHandlerResolverImpl ones). |
|
Regarding UDPDestination, there is no i18n facility already in place, so it needs to be introduced. But, then again, this is the only class in |
|
Well, in that case the effort is likely not worth the gain, so let's avoid i18n in UDPDestination. And no, generally speaking we should have already internationalized the logs that needed to be, here the idea was only to try improving the message. |
|
Is this more inline with what should be done? |
| @@ -328,7 +331,8 @@ private void processHandlerElement(Element el, @SuppressWarnings("rawtypes") Lis | |||
| .unmarshal(el, PortComponentHandlerType.class).getValue(); | |||
| chain.addAll(buildHandlerChain(pt, classLoader)); | |||
| } catch (JAXBException e) { | |||
| e.printStackTrace(); | |||
| DEPLOYMENT_LOGGER.unableToProcessHandlerElement(el, e); | |||
| log.error(e); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Isn't the whole cause exception logged at the line above? Do we really need 2 log invocations?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's my mistake. Sorry about that.
…d of logging feature Issue: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBWS-3998
Issue: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/JBWS-3998