I see this in ErrorHandler - where exceptions are now logged as fatal, rather than at the error severity:
Message errorMessage = new Message(message, (t == null) ? null : t.toString(), Message.Severity.Fatal);
I wouldn't necessarily call all exceptions "fatal", where "fatal" usually means the app can no longer continue and should be considered in a bad state that usually requires it to restart. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of all exceptions that occur do not rise to the level of "fatal".
log4j defines 'fatal' as "very severe error events that will presumably lead the application to abort"... see:
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/Level.html#FATA...
I recommend we change that back to 'error' since that will be the most common case for those calling the ErrorHandler. Thoughts?
Definitely agreed.
Andreas
----- Original Message ----- From: "John Mazzitelli" mazz@redhat.com To: rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org Sent: Friday, October 1, 2010 2:51:28 PM GMT +01:00 Amsterdam / Berlin / Bern / Rome / Stockholm / Vienna Subject: fatal vs error
I see this in ErrorHandler - where exceptions are now logged as fatal, rather than at the error severity:
Message errorMessage = new Message(message, (t == null) ? null : t.toString(), Message.Severity.Fatal);
I wouldn't necessarily call all exceptions "fatal", where "fatal" usually means the app can no longer continue and should be considered in a bad state that usually requires it to restart. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of all exceptions that occur do not rise to the level of "fatal".
log4j defines 'fatal' as "very severe error events that will presumably lead the application to abort"... see:
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/Level.html#FATA...
I recommend we change that back to 'error' since that will be the most common case for those calling the ErrorHandler. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ rhq-devel mailing list rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
I was trying to distinguish between application errors (i.e exceptions) and user errors. Maybe there's some other way to do this - perhaps consider any error that includes an Exception an application error and have the framework prefix the message with "Unexpected application error: ".
On 10/01/2010 08:51 AM, John Mazzitelli wrote:
I see this in ErrorHandler - where exceptions are now logged as fatal, rather than at the error severity:
Message errorMessage = new Message(message, (t == null) ? null
: t.toString(), Message.Severity.Fatal);
I wouldn't necessarily call all exceptions "fatal", where "fatal" usually means the app can no longer continue and should be considered in a bad state that usually requires it to restart. In fact, I would guess that the vast majority of all exceptions that occur do not rise to the level of "fatal".
log4j defines 'fatal' as "very severe error events that will presumably lead the application to abort"... see:
http://logging.apache.org/log4j/1.2/apidocs/org/apache/log4j/Level.html#FATA...
I recommend we change that back to 'error' since that will be the most common case for those calling the ErrorHandler. Thoughts? _______________________________________________ rhq-devel mailing list rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel
rhq-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org