fatal vs error

Ian Springer ian.springer at redhat.com
Fri Oct 1 13:35:40 UTC 2010


  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#FATAL
>
> 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 at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel


-- 
Ian Springer
Principal Software Developer
JBoss Operations Network
Red Hat
ian.springer at redhat.com



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list