Logging verbosity

Alan Santos asantos at redhat.com
Tue Dec 17 23:23:57 UTC 2013


On Dec 17, 2013, at 2:47 PM, Larry O'Leary <loleary at 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 at 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 at lists.fedorahosted.org
> https://lists.fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/rhq-devel



More information about the rhq-devel mailing list