On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Larry O'Leary <loleary(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2013-12-17 at 20:38 +0100, Heiko W.Rupp wrote:
> Am 17.12.2013 um 19:00 schrieb Lukas Krejci <lkrejci(a)redhat.com>:
>> I am personally very much FOR having stacktraces in the log messages, especially
in erroneous conditions like this one (i.e. IMHO almost
>
> If our stacktraces would only contain relevant information I would agree.
>
> Spitting out the same 30 lines over and over again does not add any value.
> A lot of what is written is stuff inside java.* . Also for above case, the trace
> is always the same, and leads to the place you pointed out. That trace
> does not tell anything about the cause, which is what we would want in
> reality.
>
> We may log the traces at a different level that is off by default though.
I would only expect to see stack traces at DEBUG level. At any log level
below that, I would expect the log message to provide me with the most
relevant information in a non-Java or non-developer context.
Larry, What’s the general customer response when you ask them to reproduce the error with
DEBUG? How much additional time does that back-and-forth typically add?
-alan
--
Larry O'Leary
https://plus.google.com/+LarryOLeary
_______________________________________________
rhq-devel mailing list
rhq-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel